ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

WALES

The Secretary of State was asked—

Manufacturing

Ann Winterton: What recent assessment he has made of the state of the manufacturing sector in Wales.

Paul Murphy: The manufacturing industry is, of course, very important to Wales. According to the latest available figures, the sector employs about 13.5 per cent. of the Welsh work force.

Ann Winterton: The manufacturing industry in the UK has taken a very hard hit in the recession, and that is perhaps even more true of Wales. Is the Secretary of State aware of the concerns of many in the manufacturing work force in Wales who work for foreign companies that there may be plans to offshore employment? Examples of such companies include Toyota in north Wales and Corus in south Wales; Corus has a plant in the Netherlands. What discussion has he had with other Ministers, and with the Welsh Assembly, to ensure that that does not happen?

Paul Murphy: The hon. Lady makes a valid point. I have of course had discussions with my right hon. Friend the Business Secretary, and with the First Minister and Deputy First Minister of Wales. I have also discussed the issue of Corus with the chief executive of Corus. The point that the hon. Lady makes about foreign-owned companies in Wales is well taken, but I have no reason to believe that that will be a disadvantage to us in Wales in the months to come. In my constituency, for example, thousands of people work for car component manufacturers that are American-owned, and so far, so good. Obviously, they are feeling the pinch, like all manufacturing companies, and particularly those in the automotive industry, but I very much take her point on board.

Nick Ainger: My right hon. Friend and his colleagues in Government should be congratulated on the work that they are doing to get information to small and medium-sized businesses about the various schemes that are there to help. However, the Treasury Committee has been taking evidence in Northern Ireland, Scotland and the north of England, and one of the messages that we are getting back from some businesses is that they are not aware of all the schemes. May I urge my right hon. Friend to contact his right hon. Friends in the Cabinet to ensure that all the information and all the schemes are made available direct to small and medium-sized businesses, so that they can approach the banks, and not wait for the banks to approach them?

Paul Murphy: Yes. My hon. Friend is of course a distinguished member of the Treasury Committee, and he makes a valid point. The issue of information is very important. The "Real help now" information is available on all Government websites, and on the websites of the devolved Administrations, including the Welsh Assembly Government, but more work is necessary, particularly locally. Most local authorities in Wales are now organising economic summits in their areas. There was one in my area on Friday, for example, and I know that there is to be a summit in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Wales. Information is best disseminated at the most local level, but I very much take the points that my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen, West and South Pembrokeshire (Nick Ainger) makes.

Lembit �pik: Only yesterday, I received notice that the Newtown factory branch of Trelleborg Sealing Solutions is to cut about 56 jobs, following similar examples at Stadco and Floform. What plans does the Secretary of State have to make sure that the manufacturing skills gap does not widen in Montgomeryshire, and is there potential to divert money specifically into the manufacturing base in mid-Wales, so that we can replace the jobs that we are losing with green jobs in the green economy, which provides both manufacturing opportunities and sustainable economic activity for the longer term?

Paul Murphy: Yes, and that is certainly a priority of the United Kingdom Government, and of the Welsh Assembly Government, too. It is important that the hon. Gentleman and other Members who represent Welsh constituencies are aware of the various schemes available to businesses in Wales, particularly the ProAct scheme. It is unique to Wales and is very effective. Some 75 applications have now been processed, and 66 of them are from the automotive industry. Ten have been accepted. That represents nearly 6,000 workers, so it is a very real scheme, and it means that real money goes to help businesses such as the one that the hon. Gentleman described. I take the point that he makes about the green industry; that is a priority for both Governments.

Peter Hain: Will my right hon. Friend take no lessons from Conservative Members on the impact of the global credit crunch on manufacturing in Wales? Their policies in the 1980s and '90s decimated manufacturing in Wales, and they show every sign of wanting to repeat those policies. I hope that my right hon. Friend will stand up against them.

Paul Murphy: I certainly agree that, during the recessions back in the time of Mrs. Thatcher's Government, the situation was very different. It is most important to understand that we cannot simply sit back and do nothing. The Labour Government here, and a Labour-led coalition in Cardiff, are actually being positive about the help that we can give businesses in Wales. That is something that we did not see before, and I fear that we are not seeing that from the Conservative Opposition now.

David Jones: The Secretary of State will know that Toyota announced today that it is putting its factory on Deeside on short-time working and its staff on reduced pay. He has already mentioned the importance of the automotive industry to the Welsh economy. Given that importance, does he know precisely when the automotive assistance programme, which was announced with so much fanfare in January, will be implemented? Is it another case not of real help now, but of jam tomorrow?

Paul Murphy: No; the hon. Gentleman is aware that some of the schemes are to operate at different times. For example, in April at least six schemes are due to go live, including help for the automotive industry. There are other schemes that have already started. I cited to the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik) the excellent ProAct scheme that works in Wales. The schemes are staggered in time scale, but they are about real help for people. The hon. Member for Clwyd, West (Mr. Jones) is right that the delivery of such schemes must be a main priority of Government, whether here in London or in Cardiff. Help is available, and it is up to the industry to apply for that help.

Small Business Support

Mark Williams: What assessment he has made of the level of support available to small businesses in Wales.

Paul Murphy: Businesses in Wales are receiving a high level of support from Governments at both ends of the M4. Small and medium-sized businesses in particular are the lifeblood of the Welsh economy and they make up, as the hon. Gentleman knows, some 98 per cent. of Welsh companies.

Mark Williams: With reference to one of those schemes, the enterprise finance guarantee scheme, does the Secretary of State share the concerns of many small businesses across Wales that many of the high street banks operating the scheme are demanding crippling personal guarantees of up to 100 per cent. against homes and assets, even though the Government are guaranteeing 75 per cent.? Whose guarantee is itthat of the banks or of the small businesses of Wales?

Paul Murphy: Obviously, the guarantees are to the banks in order to ensure that they make effective lending possible, but the hon. Gentleman is right that whether the policy is filtering down to the local levelto the bank managers that we used to have in the old daysis another story. It is important for small businesses that lending starts again. It is also important to understand that banks still have to make commercial decisions. One of the reasons for the mess that we are in at the moment is that banks made the wrong decisions about risk or there was a lack of acknowledgement of risk. There are businesses in Wales that are viable and good and that deserve help. It is up to our banks, together with the help that Government in London and Cardiff give, to make sure that that lending occurs.

Don Touhig: Small businesses will be greatly helped if they can recruit people with the skills that they need. At Oakdale comprehensive school I saw for myself last week that young people are being prepared well for the workplace and given good IT skills. What initiatives exist to ensure that we have strong school-business links, so that when we come out of the economic downturn Welsh companies are certain that they will have a strong and skilled work force from whom to recruit?

Paul Murphy: That is the point, of course. We cannot forget about training and education for the future, for when we come out of the downturn. The initiative at Oakdale is a very good one. I will certainly commend it to the First Minister when I next meet him. It is important that we have a properly trained work force, and our colleges and schools in Wales play a hugely important role in that respect.

Stephen Crabb: Does the Secretary of State not realise that there is a huge disconnect between the rhetoric and the words used at his Dispatch Box and at the business summit public relations exercises that are being conducted throughout Wales, and the reality on the ground, particularly in areas such as Pembrokeshire and west Wales, where small businesses are seeing precious little additional new assistance at this time of recession? Is the Secretary of State aware of the enormous disillusion in the small business community with the promises being made by Ministers and with how little is being delivered?

Paul Murphy: There is time for rhetoric and there is time for people to pull together to help those who are out of work in Wales. I have not the slightest doubt that the economic summits that we have heldthere is one to be held in a few weeks in Swanseahave done a remarkably good job in bringing together from business, industry, the trade union movement and elsewhere all the expertise that we can gather in Wales. It is true to say that it will take time for some of those schemes to start working, but some have already started working. The figures that I have just given the House with regard to ProAct are a good example of that. At least we are trying. I fear that the hon. Gentleman's party has no ideas at all about how to get us out of the recession. It is much better for small businesses, industry and commerce in Wales to know that both Governments are trying to help them, as opposed to his party, which has said absolutely nothing.

Si�n James: We have heard a lot today about the difficulties and economic challenges that face small businesses. However, the Secretary of State was kind enough to come to my constituency recently and he visited a very successful SMETomos Watkin's at the Hurns Brewing Company. It has been bucking the trend. I am sure that the Secretary of State will join me in congratulating the company on its wonderful successes.

Paul Murphy: I certainly do. Swansea is a great example of a city with thriving small and medium-sized enterprises as the very backbone of its economy. I visited a number of them with my hon. Friend, and I can certainly commend the excellent beers that Tomos Watkin's provides.

Elfyn Llwyd: I do not recognise the problems of small businesses in Wales to which the hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Mr. Crabb) referred. The Secretary of State has rightly referred to the 48 million ProAct scheme; there is also the 35 million ReAct scheme to retrain and assist people facing redundancy. Furthermore, there is the 20 million apprenticeship scheme for reskilling young people and the extra business rates relief, which now assists approximately 55,000 small businesses in Wales. Is it not heartening to hear of David Rosser of the CBI going out of his way to say well done to the Deputy First Minister and his team in reacting urgently and properly to assist small businesses in Wales?

Paul Murphy: I am happy to say well done to the Deputy First Minister and the First Minister in Wales for the work that the Assembly Government have done. The reality is that individual people and businesses have been helped by those schemes. For example, there is Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs Time to Pay scheme, under which taxation is deferred. Some 2,600 firms in Wales benefit from that; 38 million has been deferred so that they can. There are other schemes as well. The point is that unless the Government act to help businesses, families and individuals, nobody else will.

Albert Owen: Many small businesses in my constituency and throughout Wales rely on visitors and tourism. Does the Secretary of State agree that the product that is Wales needs extra support and help to promote its image at this difficult time? Furthermore, we should take advantage of the relatively low value of the pound sterling against the dollar and the euro. Will he raise those issues with Ministers? Next time he comes to Ynys Mn, will he meet tourist associations and operators to see first hand the problems that they face?

Paul Murphy: Of course I will. There is no finer part of the United Kingdom to visit than Wales, and my hon. Friend's constituency is a great example. I am going there in a couple of weeks' time, and I assure him that he and I will look at the advantages that Ynys Mn gives the world.

Roger Williams: In these dire economic circumstances, the Welsh Assembly Government and the Westminster Government are increasingI repeat, increasingbusiness rates by nearly 5 per cent. next year. What message does that send to small businesses that are struggling to survive in Wales, and what is the Secretary of State doing to stop this madness?

Paul Murphy: There are ways and means by which firms in Wales can go to the local authorities and the Welsh Assembly Government and receive direct help, under the scheme that the Assembly Government have put forward. In addition, there is help on empty properties. I understand, however, that small firms have difficulties with this issue; that is why I referred to the HMRC Time to Pay scheme, of which many firms have taken advantage.

Cheryl Gillan: The Secretary of State has revealed today that 10 businesses have been helped under the ProAct scheme and that help for 75 is under consideration. Frankly, that is just scratching the surface. The Secretary of State's figures are wrong; the Treasury has said today that 3,590 businesses in Wales have agreed terms to defer payments, a further 120 have been turned down and 405 are still in negotiations. That means that more than 4,000 businesses are facing trouble. Given that sort of volume, does the Secretary of State really consider that the schemes put in place by the Welsh Assembly Government and his Government have the capacity to cope with the large number of firms that are in trouble, are closing or are laying off staff?

Paul Murphy: Yes, I think that the schemes collectively will do that. Does the hon. Lady realise that we are talking about hundreds of billions of pounds, which have been put into the banking system to prevent it from collapsing and to ensure that banks lend again? Those schemes will start at the beginning of the financial year. She should consider the importance of the schemes I have referred to, such as ProAct, ReAct and other schemes in Wales. They are meaningful schemes that are working. I agree that more work needs to be done to ensure that people are aware of them, but they are still better than the policies her party has put forward.

Cheryl Gillan: The Secretary of State is right to say that more work needs to be done, because the managing director of the leading business advice organisation in the country, Venture Wales, has said that since the Welsh Assembly Government took over the Welsh Development Agency, help for small firms has deteriorated. He says that decision making is slow, that morale is low and that millions of pounds are being wasted. If that is the view of an expert on the systems of help for businesses in Wales, what is the Secretary of State going to do about it?

Paul Murphy: That is not the message I am getting. The CBI in Wales, the Federation of Small Businesses and individual businesses in my constituency are giving me the message that real help has come from the Welsh Assembly Government to the business sector. To take one example, the finance Wales initiativeour own Wales bank to help small businesseshas invested 17 million this financial year. That is 25 per cent. more than last year, and it is real help going to real businesses in Wales.

Welsh Language Certificates

Hywel Williams: What recent discussions he has had with ministerial colleagues on the provision of birth, marriage and death certificates in the Welsh language.

Wayne David: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have regular discussions with ministerial colleagues on a range of issues affecting Wales, including the Welsh language. Wales Office officials have discussed the provision of Welsh language certificates with colleagues as part of work on recent and current legislation.

Hywel Williams: I thank the Under-Secretary for that answer. He may be aware of the Bill published by our former colleague, Gareth Thomas, the former Labour MP for Clwyd, West on this subject some years ago. Does the Under-Secretary agree that circumstances have not changed? There is a demand for Welsh language certificates. Will he strive to make parliamentary time available for a Bill on this matter, should one be presented?

Wayne David: I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the Government remain firmly committed to producing Welsh language certificates, and the General Register Office is exploring the best way to do that. I am happy to take forward discussions with the Home Office to find the best solution, but it is not a simple matter. It is not a question of introducing a Bill; we have to explore the best possible way. I reiterate that we are firmly committed to pursuing that path.

Internet Crime Prevention

Alun Michael: What recent discussions he has had with the First Minister on Welsh initiatives to prevent internet crime.

Wayne David: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has regular discussions with the First Minister on a range of issues affecting Wales. The UK and Welsh Assembly Governments are working closely with law enforcement bodies, industry and financial institutions to combat crimes committed over the internet.

Alun Michael: I ask for an assurance that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the First Minister will give continued support to e-Crime Wales, which, along with the Yorkshire e-business centre, provides the best example of how to tackle online crime. Does my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary agree that digital inclusion requires Wales specifically and the UK generally to be made the safest place to do business online, whether that business is personal or commercial?

Wayne David: My right hon. Friend makes a good point. The digital inclusion agenda must include the measures he talks about. He referred to e-Crime Wales, and it is holding a series of business breakfasts around Wales in February and March this year, to keep businesses up to date with the latest threats, and to tell them what steps they can take to minimise the risks of the damaging effects of e-crime. Moreover, e-Crime Wales has produced a number of extremely useful fact sheets on its website for business and individuals. All of that clearly shows that we are firmly committed to developing this agenda for the safety of everyone.

David Davies: Does the Minister agree that there is little prospect of doing anything meaningful about internet crime when Welsh police forces are facing such drastic cuts to their budgets that they have to reduce the numbers of front-line police officers in many parts of the Principality?

Wayne David: The fact of the matter is, of course, that there is no reduction in front-line policing. Of course there are efficiency measures taking shape, and bureaucracy is being reduced, but we are seeing better front-line policing throughout the length and breadth of Wales. That is very significant and far different from what the Opposition would do if they ever had power, for goodness' sake.

Government Funding

Peter Bone: What recent discussions he has had with the First Minister on the mechanisms for allocation of central Government funding to Wales.

Paul Murphy: I have regular discussions with the First Minister on a range of issues, including central funding.

Peter Bone: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for his response, but in Wales 8,577 per person is spent on public expenditure. In my constituency it is only 6,936. My constituents pay the same taxes as those in Wales. Is it fair that each man, woman and child in Wellingborough is 1,641 a year worse off?

Paul Murphy: I do not know the rate of deprivation in Wellingborough, but large parts of Wales are seriously deprived because of the run-down of traditional industries. The Barnett formula, which deals with central funding for Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, was based on the needs of those different parts of our United Kingdom. That is the reason why that difference is in place.

John Smith: Will my right hon. Friend assure me that any discussions that he has about central funding and the mechanism used do not undervalue the role of defence expenditure in projects such as the defence technical academy in my constituency at St. Athan? Will he join me in welcoming the news that the joint director for technical training in the military is going to move to St. Athan in April, in anticipation of the construction of the new college?

Paul Murphy: Of course I will, and I congratulate my hon. Friend on his tenacity in dealing with this issue. Billions of pounds of public spending will come to his constituency and the surrounding constituencies, and I know that he has played a very significant role in ensuring that that is the case.

Jennifer Willott: Central funding for policing in Wales has left south Wales with a shortfall of 10 million since 2005 and with an estimated shortfall of 7.7 million over the next three years. I have already written to the Home Secretary about that and have not yet had a reply. Will the Secretary of State take the matter up with the Home Office, to tackle that unfair and dangerous funding gap?

Paul Murphy: The hon. Lady will be pleased to know that I met the Home Secretary last week on that very issue, and further discussions are ongoing.

Adam Price: The Assembly Finance Committee this week, and the Labour party in Scotland through its submission to the Calman commission, have made the case for borrowing powers to be given to the devolved Administrations. Does the Secretary of State see some merit in that proposal?

Paul Murphy: I cannot see an enormous amount of merit in it at this stage, because of course if there is borrowing, money has to be found from somewhere to pay off the borrowing. However, I know that further discussions are being held on the matter.  [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Before I call the next question, I should say that it is unfair to hon. Members who are here for Welsh questions that there is so much private conversation.

Unemployment Support

Nia Griffith: What recent discussions he has had with the First Minister on assistance for those who have lost their jobs in the current economic downturn.

Wayne David: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has regular discussions with the First Minister about assistance for those who have lost their jobs in Wales, not least at the all-Wales economic summits that he attends. I would also point out that I have recently visited Llanelli to talk with local businesses, as my hon. Friend well knows.

Nia Griffith: My hon. Friend will know that balancing the books in Wales depends on a 9 billion subsidy from the rest of the UK. How could the help that he has described be provided if an independent Wales had to depend entirely on Welsh tax revenue?

Wayne David: My hon. Friend makes a very valid point. It is extremely important in these difficult economic times that we all pull together in the UK, not pull apart. I find it strange, as she does, that Plaid Cymru is demanding 3 billion from the UK Government at the same time that it is calling for independence.

Mr. Speaker: I call Mark Pritchard.

Mark Pritchard: rose

Mr. Speaker: I call David Taylor. No, I apologise, the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard) did stand up.

Business Support

Mark Pritchard: What discussions he has had with ministerial colleagues and the Welsh Assembly Government on schemes to assist businesses in Wales during the economic downturn.

Paul Murphy: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer that I gave the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mark Williams).

Mark Pritchard: I am delighted to have given the Secretary of State more time to think about his answer. He knows that Shimizu, a fine Japanese company, has factories in Welshpool and in Hortonwood in my constituency. The difference is that, on the Welsh side of the border, it receives taxpayer subsidies for wages and training. That is good news; we want people in jobs in Wales, but what about the people of Shropshire and my constituents, who would like a similar subsidy from the regional development agency?

Paul Murphy: As the hon. Gentleman knows, one great benefit of devolution is that we can have several schemes to help businesses in Wales that might not be available in England. However, there are also effective schemes across the border in England, such as Train to Gain, the help that the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform gives small and medium-sized enterprises, and the Department for Work and Pensions schemes. There are plenty of schemesit is important that the hon. Gentleman makes his constituents aware of them.

Barnett Formula

David Taylor: What recent assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the mechanisms of the Barnett formula in allocating funding to Wales; and if he will make a statement.

Paul Murphy: The Barnett formula has been used for almost 30 years, and my hon. Friend has been asking the same question for the past 10 of them. I understand that the Treasury has no plans to review the funding arrangements.

David Taylor: More than 10 million people in the English midlands have a similar socio-economic and demographic profile to that of the people of Wales. They look over Offa's dyke with some envy at the public expenditure that is possible through the Barnett formula. Will my right hon. Friend see me to ascertain how we in the English midlands can get such support? Is he willing for us to have honorary status in Wales as Powys, East?

Paul Murphy: I am happy for my hon. Friend to have honorary status in Wales. However, he knows that the well trusted formula has helped Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland for more than 30 years. I understand that the midlands, too, can benefit from other sources.

PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked

Engagements

Andrew Miller: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 11 March.

Gordon Brown: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I know that the House will want to join me in expressing our sincerest condolences to the families and friends of Sappers Mark Quinsey and Patrick Azimkar of 38 Engineer Regiment, who were brutally murdered in Northern Ireland on Saturday evening, and to the family and friends of Constable Stephen Carroll, who was murdered while on police duty on Monday. At times like these, we remember the professional courage and dedication of our armed forces and the police. I believe that, at all times, the whole country will want toand shouldgive our full support to the men and women who serve our country. The House will also wish to extend our best wishes for recovery to the soldiers and civilians who were injured in Saturday's attack.
	The peace marches today on the streets of Northern Ireland show what I saw there on Monday, and what we see throughout the country: the unity against violence of the people and their representatives; the defiance and the determination to stand up to the evil of criminal violence, and the unyielding resolution to say with one voice that the peace that the people of Northern Ireland are building no murderers should ever be allowed to destroy.
	This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall have further such meetings later today.

Andrew Miller: I know that I speak for the House when I associate myself with the Prime Minister's remarks about those who were killed and injured serving our country, and with his remarks about Northern Ireland.
	My right hon. Friend knows of my worries about the vehicle industry and its supply chain. I know that a lot is happening, such as discussions with the industry and its trade unions. However, when will the banks get their act together to help stimulate demand, not only for vehicles, but all our manufactured goods?

Gordon Brown: I thank my hon. Friend for his constant support for the car industry and, of course, Ellesmere Port in his constituency.
	At the car summit today, the business Minister is explaining the 2.3 billion of support that is available for the car industry. To ensure that the banks serve companies and the public interest in future in this wholly new world, we are reshaping them. First, they have had to sign lending agreements worth 44 billion of extra investment, which will take place this year. We are also regulating the banks for remuneration and risk, levels of cash flow and cross-border capital flows. We want to achieve an international understanding so that other countries will do exactly what we are doing.

David Cameron: May I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the kind words that you said a fortnight ago about the loss of my son, Ivan? I particularly want to thank the Prime Minister for what he said. It came straight from the heart and it meant a great deal to Samantha and to me. We have had letters from right across the House of Commons and from thousands of people in the country. It has been a great comfort to know that others are thinking of us. A lot of letters have come from families who themselves have lost children. If there is a common theme in them, it is that although the loss never goes away, there does come a day when you look back at your child's life and you think happy thoughts about their life rather than feel sorrow at their death. I hope that that day will come for us, too.
	Today, I join the Prime Minister in mourning the dreadful losses of the three British families of Sappers Mark Quinsey and Patrick Azimkar and Constable Stephen Carroll. On the day when we remember the service of our soldiers, we should remind those who protest against them that they have the right to do so only because British soldiers put their lives on the line.
	On Northern Ireland, let us be clear about the nature of these crimes: they were committed by callous killers, capable of shooting men in cold blood and standing over their wounded bodies and murdering them. Does the Prime Minister agree with me that the most important thing in Northern Ireland today is that everyone works with the police so that these killers can be found, caught, charged and convicted?

Gordon Brown: Let me welcome back the Leader of the Opposition. I understand the grief that he and his family have been going through.
	In Northern Ireland today we are seeing a degree of unity among the political parties that some people thought they would never see in their lifetimes. We are seeing all parties call for the citizens of Northern Ireland to co-operate with the police; we are seeing all parties condemning the violence; and we are seeing all parties asking those people who have information to help the police track down these killers. As the House will know, two men have been arrested as a result of the police killing and the hunt is on for the people who brutally murdered the soldiers on Saturday evening.
	I can say to the House that we will do everything we can to enhance security arrangements in Northern Ireland. I have talked directly to Chief Constable Hugh Orde about that and we will leave no stone unturned in ensuring that he has available to him all the arrangements necessary to enhance security there. I believe that out of tragedy we are seeing a unity, which shows the determination that, although a few murderers may try to disrupt the process, the whole of the people of Northern Ireland want not only to see justice done but to send a message that the political process is here to stay and is working.

David Cameron: The Prime Minister is absolutely right about that unity. It is remarkableand it is remarkably welcomethat every political party in Northern Ireland, including individuals who were once bombers and terrorists, are calling on people to co-operate with the police. Does he agree that that highlights the importance of our reaction, which should be to say that Northern Ireland is not on the brink and is not staring into an abyss, but instead needs effective policing, the co-operation of the public and the measured reaction of politicians? Are not those the things that we need to ensure that these murderers never win?

Gordon Brown: I agree entirely with the right hon. Gentleman, and I see the assent of all parties sitting in the House to what we are both saying about the importance of people working together to hunt down these criminals. We are dealing with a small minority. The Real IRA and Continuity IRA have claimed credit for the killings in a way that is sickening, and they seem not to be able to distinguish between the needs of the armed services and civilians. Calling civilians collaborators was totally despicable. We will do everything in our power to track down these killers, but we will also do everything in our power to support the police and the armed forces.
	It is right to raise the support that we give to our armed forces in every part of the country. Homecoming parades should be what people in the communities concerned want them to be, and that is a celebration and a commemoration of the great service and dedication of our armed forces in every part of the country. I believe that the country wishes the homecoming parades that are going on in Watford, Windsor and Bolton to go ahead without interruption. There is a right to freedom of speech, but there is not a right to disruption and to public disorder. It is our duty to ensure that order is kept.

David Cameron: The whole House will have agreed with the Prime Minister about the value of the homecoming parades, but may I turn to another issue?
	Serious allegations have been made that Britain may have been complicit in torture. Let us be absolutely clear about Binyam Mohamed. This is someone who claimed he was going to Chechnya to help civilians, but in fact ended up in Afghanistan. Nevertheless his allegations have to be dealt with. It is right for the Attorney-General to see whether a crime has been committed, but is it not also important that the Prime Minister is satisfied that Britain has throughout acted with moral authorityover and above the question of whether a crime has been committed? Will the Prime Minister tell us what he has done to satisfy himself of the true facts in this case?

Gordon Brown: Let me say right at the outset that this Government unreservedly condemn the use of torture. Under no circumstances will we participate in, encourage or condone the use of torture for any purpose. Where allegations are made about torture, I have instructed that they must be properly examinedincluding, if necessary, by the courts. The Attorney-General is looking at the very specific allegations in this case. If there is evidence, it will be referred to the police, who will conduct a criminal inquiry. At the moment, the matter is with the Attorney-General, who is looking at all the evidence. As I say, I have instructed that whenever allegations are made, they are properly investigated.

David Cameron: I grateful for the Prime Minister's assurances and we agree completely with what he says about torture being unacceptable. We all want to eradicate the potential stain on Britain's reputation, but the question is whether an investigation by the Attorney-General into criminal conduct is enough. Surely we need to look at what procedures and processes are in place to ensure that Britain cannot knowingly, or unknowingly, be implicated in torture. Is that not why we need a brief, judge-led inquiry into what happened and what lessons need to be learned?

Gordon Brown: I appreciate what the right hon. Gentleman says and it is absolutely right that we be vigilant at all times because the freedoms and liberties of this country are best served by making absolutely sure that we unreservedly condemn and do not allow the use of torture. The Intelligence and Security Committee has investigated some aspects of these matters and reports were done in 2005 and 2007. The Committee will continue to look at these matters because that is the statutory role given to it. At the same time, the Attorney-General will look at all the details, and I have made it clear that there is a next stage. If any evidence is found that should lead to a police investigation, it will be referred to the police, and if they decide to proceed a criminal investigation will be carried out. This is the best way to deal with these specific instancesthe Intelligence and Security Committee looks at the general cases.

David Cameron: But it is not clear that the Attorney-General's inquiry will answer the question that the Prime Minister himself rightly poses, which is whether we have acted properly at all times during these procedures. The Attorney-General will look at the one case, rather than at the procedures in all cases. The Attorney-General is, quite rightly, looking at whether a crime has been committed, but is not really looking at our moral authority and whether it has been maintained. Does not the Prime Minister see that an inquiry is likely to become necessary: either the Attorney-General will find that a crime has been committed, in which case there will be a clamour for an inquiry to answer how on earth it was allowed to happen; or, on the other hand, if the Attorney-General decides not to go ahead with a prosecution, we will still not really have the answers to what happened in this important case? On either ground, would it not be better to order that judge-led inquiry, instead of having it dragged out in the weeks ahead?

Gordon Brown: The Intelligence and Security Committee has inquired, and continues to inquire, into these matters, and we have had a debate about the full status of the ISC for the future. It looked at the issue of rendition in great detail in its previous inquiry. The Home Secretary, in her role as an adviser to Government, referred the question of possible criminal wrongdoing to the Attorney-General. She is consulting others, as is necessary, about what needs to be done. It is obviously for her to decide how she is likely to proceed. The court that heard Binyam Mohamed's judicial review case has made it clear that it thinks this is the right way to proceed. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will allow the inquiries taking place to proceed. On the general issues he raised, Britain, because of our defence of freedom and liberty, of course wishes to be seen to be doing everything in our power to deal with questions that arise about the use of torture or rendition. I believe that, at this stage, the best way to proceed is with the Intelligence and Security Committee, but let us hear the report of the Attorney-General.

Peter Hain: The Prime Minister made some welcome observations about the terrible tragedies in Northern Ireland. Does he agree that what is especially encouraging is the fact that the leaders of republicanism have spoken out so clearly and unequivocally in condemning those terrible criminal atrocities, and have been united in doing so? Even a few years ago, it would have been unthinkable that the Deputy First Minister, with all his history, would stand alongside the First Minister and the Chief Constable and say that we would not tolerate this criminality, while still retaining his republican objectives. That gives us encouragement, or should, in the current circumstances.

Gordon Brown: I spoke to the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister on Sunday, and met them both on Monday. Both revealed their determination to make it absolutely clear that violence cannot be tolerated, that terrorists must be rooted out, and that the community should co-operate with the police in doing that. They condemned absolutely the killings of a police officer and the killings of Army officers who were, sadly, on their way to Afghanistan, and who would have left that night but for the terrible incident.
	I say to my right hon. Friend that out of this tragedy something is emerging which shows that the people of Northern Ireland, as well as the politicians, want the political process to be both maintained and strengthened. I think that that gives reassurance and encouragement even in this most difficult of times.

Nicholas Clegg: Following the brutal murders of Sappers Quinsey and Azimkar and Constable Carroll, and the serious injuries suffered by four others, may I say on behalf of all Liberal Democrat Members that our hearts go out to the families of the victims, though they harden against their murderers? Their violence must not and will not divide the people of Northern Ireland; instead, it will strengthen their resolve to live their lives in peace. That is the unwavering message of the dignified demonstrations taking place in Northern Ireland today.
	May I also extend my personal welcome to the leader of the Conservative party on his return to Parliament, and say on behalf of all on these Benches that we sincerely hope that he and his family will be given the time and the space to cope with the terrible loss they have suffered?
	I am sure the Prime Minister will agree that today's announcement from President Sarkozy that he will reverse General de Gaulle's legacy and rejoin NATO is hugely significant, but does he also agree that it offers an enormous opportunity for Britain, along with France, to lead European defence co-operation, which has been held back by tensions surrounding the Atlantic alliance?

Gordon Brown: I do welcome France's announcement that at the NATO summit on 3 and 4 April, with the President of America and other people present, it will announce its return to the inner core of NATO. I believe that that is good for the defence of the world. I also believe that there are opportunities for co-operation not just between France and Britain, but between the countries of the rest of the world, in relation to nuclear disarmament.
	We are at a critical point in the nuclear proliferation discussions, and we are at a particularly difficult point in relation to Iran. We have made it clear to Iran that it cannot join the international community unless it renounces nuclear weapons. However, I believe that a wider deal on nuclear arms is possible in the next few years, and I think the right hon. Gentleman will see that France, America and other members of NATO are keen to see that happen.

Nicholas Clegg: I welcome the Prime Minister's response, but my main concern is that he may still miss the full opportunity available to him. If he could commit Britain to working fully with France and others on European defencewhich, frankly, we have not done before nowhe would be in a stronger position to ask them to commit more money and troops to Afghanistan. Does he recognise that there is a good bargain to be had, which would be of enormous help to our overstretched service men and women for many years to come?

Gordon Brown: European defence co-operation is important. I think the hon. Gentleman will know that it exists in many areas, and particularly between Britain and France. I have talked directly to President Sarkozy about what more we can do together in Afghanistan and other places. We must also remember that we are talking about the British armed forces: the British Army, the British Navy and the British Air Force. We will defend our right to make our own decisions as well.

Geraldine Smith: The case for the partial sale of Royal Mail is crumbling and opposition is growing across the country and in this House. Is it not about time that the Government dropped that unwanted and unnecessary measure from its postal services reforms?

Gordon Brown: I know that my hon. Friend has never been a supporter of the course of action that the Government have proposed, but I ask the House to look at this issue. The Royal Mail has a pension fund deficit that is going to approach 8 billion. It has investment needs that it needs to meet for the future. It also wants to continue, as we want it to continue, the universal service obligation. It makes sense to try to find additional investors in the Royal Mail to enable us to meet our commitment to the pensioners, to maintain the universal service obligation, to keep the post office network, with the additional investment that we are making in it, and of course to give maximum support to the postal workers in our country, whom I support as well.

Nicholas Winterton: Savers have been hammered by falling interest rates, clobbered by falling share prices and shortly will suffer from the inflationary consequences of what we describe as quantitative easing. Does the Prime Minister not believeI say this sincerelythat he owes it to savers, many of whom are pensioners, to have a full debate in Government time in this House on Government economic policies, so that he can honour his commitment to this country at the beginning of his premiership to put the House of Commons at the centre of government?

Gordon Brown: We are happy to debate the economy at any time in this House and to be able to show people that we are taking the right decisions to get us through this downturn. I appreciate the difficulties that savers face at this time. The greatest danger to savers has always been high inflation. We have kept inflation low in this country for the past 11 years, and we are looking at what we can do to help savers at this point.  [ Interruption. ] If Conservative Members want to shout about that, perhaps they should look at their policies for cutting public spending. No country in the world is choosing to cut public spending at a time when people are in need of the help that Government can provide.

Phil Wilson: The north-east is aware of the importance of regional airports. Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the campaign being run by the  Northern  Echo, Keep the Region Flying, which promotes the economic benefits of airports such as Durham Tees Valley in my constituency? Is he aware that the deputy chair of the Conservative party has recently talked down the future of Durham Tees Valley airport, threatening future prosperity and jobs?

Gordon Brown: Regional airports are incredibly important to the economies of all parts of this country. I recognise the importance of domestic air services to London airports for the regional economy of the north-east and for every other regional economy in the country. I congratulate my hon. Friend and the  Northern Echo on their campaign. I understand that the aviation Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Canning Town (Jim Fitzpatrick), has agreed to meet him to discuss these issues. In the longer term, increasing capacity at Heathrow should help to maintain and grow domestic air services.

David Simpson: May I, first, thank the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and all other Members who have paid tribute to those who have died in the tragedies that have taken place in Northern Ireland over the past few days? Constable Carroll lived in my constituency in the town of Banbridge. He had served some 20 years, I believe, in the security forces and was due to take early retirement next year. I had the sad task of visiting his home yesterday. While his wife and family are heartbroken, they are resolute that Northern Ireland must move forward.
	Will the Prime Minister agree with me that the vermin, for that is what they are, who took out Constable Carroll will be brought to book for what they did; that it is important that, whatever resources the Chief Constable needs, all parties in the Northern Ireland Executive support that; and that these individuals will never be allowed to put Northern Ireland back into the 35 years of hell on earth that we have come through?

Gordon Brown: I know that the whole House will want to pass, through the hon. Gentleman, our condolences to the family of Constable Stephen Carroll. He was part of a tactical support group that was supporting a mobile patrol unit responding to reports of a broken window in a house. On arrival at the scene, he was hit by a number of shots that killed him. He was the first Police Service of Northern Ireland officer to be killed by terrorists. I hope that the hon. Gentleman can pass on our condolences to his family. I can assure him that I have talked to the Chief Constable twice and have met him subsequently. I have agreed with him, as has the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, that he will have the resources that are necessary. We need the co-operation of all communities to bring people to justice. Two arrests have been made, and it is for the police, and then the prosecuting authorities, to make further decisions on that. I must tell the hon. Gentleman that there is a determination to do everything in our power to bring what are criminal murderers to justice and to show that they have no place in the political process of Northern Ireland.

Harry Cohen: Why do the Government think that banks are best run in private hands? Why do they favour a return to private investment banks rather than a state investment bank? If banks are too big to go bankrupt, surely it is in the public interest that they are run properly, rather than have public ownership of their private bad debt.

Gordon Brown: I know that my hon. Friend has not come to these views just in the last few months, but has held them for some time. For the first time, we have insisted that banks give us a quantitative figure for the amount of lending that they will do. This is essentially a lending agreement between Government and the banks that requires the banks to do a particular amount of lending. The Royal Bank of Scotland, in which we have more than 80 per cent. of shares, has agreed to 25 billion of extra lending this year and next year; Halifax Bank of Scotland Lloyds TSB has agreed to 14 billion of extra lending on top of its previous commitment; Northern Rock has agreed to 9 billion. This is an example of how, having learned the lessons of the last few years, we are determined to insist that the banks do their duty by the public.

Paul Holmes: Forty-five council staff in Chesterfield are about to lose their jobs to pay for the Government's mistakes in introducing the national concessionary bus fare scheme last year. Thirty councils have been badly underfunded, Chesterfield by 1.5 million. Yet some councils have been given too much; next-door Bolsover has been given 400,000 more than it needs. There is still time for the Prime Minister to intervene with the Department for Transport to sort out the mess and save those 45 jobs. Will he do so?

Gordon Brown: I hope that the whole House will agree that concessionary travelthe new free bus pass for the over-60s that allows them to travel around the countryis a good invention and a good thing to do. I hope that all hon. Members will agree that we have given support to local authorities. I know that the hon. Gentleman has met the Minister concerned, and with Chesterfield borough council and Derbyshire county council. The issue is how much money they receive for the operation of the scheme. Chesterfield is receiving an extra 416,000 as a borough council, in addition to existing formula grant funding for the pre-existing other elements of the statutory bus concession. We will look at any points that he raises, but the important thing is that the concessionary bus scheme for the over-60s is working and will continue to work.

Dennis Skinner: Is the Prime Minister aware that, in Bolsover, they vote Labour and have not put in a tinpot Liberal council like Chesterfield? Is he also aware that this so-called Liberal council, which has been there for a few years, lost control of its finances generally long before the bus scheme was introduced? So whatever he doesI am sure he will look at the figuresthe Prime Minister must make sure that Bolsover retains the money that it properly gets from this Labour Government and make sure that we are able to carry out the bus travel scheme as in the past.

Gordon Brown: My hon. Friend is absolutely rightand he has also held these views for many years. The free bus pass for pensioners, and what we have done in raising the winter allowance and the basic pension, as well as the pension credit and free eye tests for pensioners, show that we are the party and the Government who are trying to serve the needs of the elderly of this country, and we will continue to do so.

Robert Wilson: What has the Prime Minister bought as a direct result of the cut in VAT?

Gordon Brown: It may not matter to Conservative Members, but people have at least 20 more in their pockets every month; people have more money in their pockets, which they can decide to spend or save. The European Union agreed yesterday that in certain other cases VAT would fall. As the Institute for Fiscal Studies says, the effects of this are giving people more discretionary spending power, and that is the right thing to do. Only the Conservative party could scorn an attempt to give 20 a month to every family in this country.

Mark Durkan: I thank the Prime Minister for his meaningful and measured presence in Northern Ireland on Monday morning. I previously recorded condolences in this House to the two soldiers who were murdered in Antrim, and I visited Constable Carroll's family last night. Does the Prime Minister agree that those young people whom the Continuity IRA and the Real IRA are seeking to recruit need to know that the lesson of Monday night is that the real patriots serving the peace of the new Ireland were Constable Carroll and his colleagues, who went to answer the call of a woman in stress, not those who brutally murdered him? While the Prime Minister has affirmed the determination of all parties to make sure these groups are not able to set us back politically, will he also assure us of his determination that they will not succeed in their other immediate aim of setting back the policing environment?

Gordon Brown: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend. He was at the meeting of all the political party leaders on Monday that was convened in Belfast. All leaders attended: all leaders said they were determined to root out violence; all leaders said that it was important to help the police in their task; and there was a unity of purpose, which is now reflected, I believe, in the peaceful and dignified marches in Northern Ireland today, to show that the whole of the public want to see an end to violence. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that those who gave their lives are true patriots, and we will never forget them; they are in our memories for ever.

Point of Order

Paul Goodman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As you are aware, the preventing violent extremism pathfinder fund distributes more than 70 million of public money to local authorities. Last year, after a delay of some six months, the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government was persuaded to place in the Library details of how that fund was being spent for that year. Earlier this year, I wrote to the Secretary of State to ask her to place in the Library the corresponding details for this year. I received no reply. After a written question, I received a reply studiously ignoring the request I had made. This morning, I phoned the Secretary of State's private office and was told that the Department mayI stress mayno longer holds these financial details for this year at all.
	My point of order is as follows. Either the Department no longer holds the details of where a substantial tranche of 70 million-worth of public money is going, which is a scandal, or it is refusing to place in the Library details of where that money is going, which, frankly, is no less scandalous in relation to information that Members of this House and members of the public have the right to see. What can you do, Mr. Speaker, to assist Members of this House in obtaining access to information that they have a right to know?

Mr. Speaker: It is up to Ministers as to how they answer parliamentary questions. I will look into the matter the hon. Gentleman raises, and I will get back to him. I thank him for raising it.

Peter Luff: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I want to point out my concern, which I hope is shared by the House, that it seems easier to get information from the Government through freedom of information requests, which would work for my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. Goodman), than through written questions. That is a very worrying development.

Mr. Speaker: It would certainly worry me. When parliamentarians seek information through parliamentary questions that is all-important and they should be a priority for any Minister.

Theft from Shops (Use of Penalty Notices for Disorder)

Motion for leave to introduce a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

Anne McIntosh: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to restrict the use of penalty notices for disorder in respect of the offence of theft from retail and commercial premises; to revise sentencing guidelines in respect of this offence; to make provision for the recording on a national database of penalty notices for disorder issued; and for connected purposes.
	The Bill has cross-party support and I am grateful to my co-sponsors for their support. Organisations representing retailers, including the British Retail Consortium, the Association of Convenience Stores and the Federation of Small Businesses, are supportive of the work that I am doing and welcome the Bill. I am delighted that the Magistrates Association also supports the Bill and that the Justice Secretary has taken the opportunity to meet many of the organisations concerned.
	Crimes against business cost the UK economy 19 billion every year according to the British Chambers of Commerce. The cost to small business of shoplifting alone in the past 12 months ran to 1 billion according to the Federation of Small Businesses. In 2007-08, more than 290,000 incidents of shop theft were recorded, and, of course, there might have been many more.
	By introducing the Bill, I am seeking to amend police guidelines to ensure that penalty notices for disorder or fines are limited to first-time offences and to ensure that the guidelines state that penalty notices for disorder should be issued only in a police station and that victims of shop theft should be consulted on the appropriate action to be taken by the police.
	Secondly, I am seeking to improve the police database to ensure that all recent shop theft offences are entered on the national computer system for ease of reference across the police forces.
	Thirdly, I am seeking to amend sentencing guidelines to give greater flexibility in tackling persistent offenders and to check that offenders are able to pay, as well as to ensure that when offences fuel a drug or drinks habit, the offender appears before the court so that they can receive proper treatment and rehabilitation. The Magistrates Association has noted
	from dealing with such offences over many years that most offenders are driven to theft because of poor budgeting and lack of support or abuse of alcohol and/or drugs. The use of a fixed penalty only serves to cause even greater financial hardship and in no way tackles the underlying cause of the offending behaviour. If the matter is put before a court then magistrates have the discretion to impose a penalty that would address the causes of the offending and help in reducing such crimes, which have a significant impact on society.
	Furthermore, the association states:
	We are concerned about the inappropriate use of Fixed Penalty Notices and even more so when we hear that over 50 per cent. are not paid and then registered for court action. As we said earlier, FPNs do not really address the underlying causes of offending and so do not make any contribution to reducing offending behaviour.
	Shop theft is not recognised as a serious offence. Retailers are often not consulted before fines are issued and the police do not always liaise with the victims of the crime. The police are switching from cautions and prosecutions to the increasing use of penalty notices for disorder and fines. The police find penalty notices for disorder attractive as they reduce paperwork and free up police time, but from the retailers' point of view, as the victims of the crime, PNDs do not match the value of goods stolen. The average value of goods stolen is 149, but the initial fine that is incurred is 80, with a penalty of only a further 40 if that is not paid.
	More worryingly, 50 per cent. of all fixed penalty notice fines go unpaid. The Magistrates Association believes that such notices simply do not address the underlying causes of offending, and that they make no contribution to reducing offending behavioursurely the object of any legislation.
	In my view, the Government are not being tough on crime or on the causes of crime. I believe that the punishment should fit the crime, and that is why I want to restrict penalty notices for disorder to first-time offences of shop theft, where the goods stolen are limited in value. Again, a PND would be issued only after consultation with the victim of the crimethat is, the shopkeeper or shop owner.
	When a community sentence is issued after persistent or aggravated offences of shop theft have allowed a case to go before the court, that sentence must be seen to be served in full. When shop theft is deemed to fuel a drug or drink habit, the court should be allowed to analyse and treat the underlying causes, and a programme of rehabilitation should be issued, where appropriate. That means that a package of measures should be put in place.
	Penalty notices for disorder were introduced by the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001. Shoplifting was introduced as an offence that attracted a PND in 2004. The notices are regarded as an alternative way to deal with low-level offending because they deliver swift, simple and effective justice and also carry a deterrent effect. A crime report is always required for the offence of retail theft.
	A notice may be issued provided that a police officer has reason to believe that a person has committed an offence, and that the officer has sufficient evidence to support a successful prosecution. Sufficient evidence may be based solely on reliable witness testimony. The amount levied by such a notice is specified by the Secretary of State and must not exceed a quarter of the maximum fine on conviction for the offence.
	Notices can be issued for the higher sums of 200 or 500 only in exceptional circumstances, and notices for theft would usually be issued only when goods have been recovered. As I said earlier, the penalty notices carry a fine of only 80. If the notice is paid within 21 days, it does not result in a criminal record. Originally, the notices were intended for low-level, usually first-time, offending and were not considered appropriate for those who offend repeatedly.
	The British Retail Consortium believes that, in addition to losing 1 billion to retail crime every year, firms must invest 1.4 billion in crime prevention measures, such as installing CCTV cameras and shutters. They also incur higher insurance premiums. Given that there could be job losses to cover those additional costs, the wider community definitely suffers from this crime.
	Since 1998-99, the number of recorded offences of shoplifting has averaged an astonishing 295,000 each year. That is equivalent to nearly 6,000 offences a week. Since 2004, the use of penalty notices has become increasingly widespread. In 2004, 1.8 per cent. of shoplifting cases attracted a penalty notice, but that proportion had risen to 27 per cent. by 2006. In fact, from 2002 to 2007, there was a 27 per cent. decrease in the number of people prosecuted for theft from shops. The use of penalty notices is replacing court sentences as a means of combating retail theft, but I believe that the current system is simply not working.
	The use of the notices means that shoplifters are treated in the same way as people who leave litter in a public place, or who are prosecuted for a parking offence. The penalty for stealing up to 100 of goods is too modest, and I believe that it should be more severe. Forty five per cent. of businesses state that crime costs them more than 5,000 each year, and that is a heavy price for small firms to pay.
	It gives me great pleasure to present this Bill to the House. I hope that the Government will look wisely and supportively on my three modest calls for actionthat the police computer be amended so that all multiple and persistent offences are entered into it, that the guidelines for the police be amended so that only first-time offences attract a penalty notice fine, and that the sentencing guidelines be modestly amended to allow such cases to be referred to the court, especially when there are underlying causes.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Ordered,
	That Miss Anne McIntosh, Mr. Roger Gale, Kelvin Hopkins, Peter Bottomley, Mr. Shailesh Vara, Mr. Frank Field, Patrick Mercer, Bob Russell, Mr. Brian Binley and Kate Hoey present the Bill.
	Miss Anne McIntosh accordingly presented the Bill.
	 Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 19 June and to be printed (Bill 74).

Business Rate Supplements Bill (Programme No. 2)

Motion made, and Question proposed,
	That the Programme Order of 12 January 2009 (Business Rate Supplements Bill (Programme)) be varied as follows:
	1. Paragraphs 4 and 5 shall be omitted.
	2. Proceedings on consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion for this Order.
	3. Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion four hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion for this Order.  (John Healey.)

Bob Neill: My hon. Friends and I are concerned about the programme motion because, although the Bill is insubstantial in volume, it could have an enormous impact on businesses in the United Kingdom. It could impose a burden of up to 600 million a year on businesses, even though business rates have already increased by 5 per cent. this year and there is a prospect of a further revaluation using a multiplier that is now out of date in the light of the changed economic circumstances.
	Although the Bill has been through a careful and constructive Committee stage, it raises a number of technical issues, and I notice that two significant new clauses have been tabled for discussion todayone by the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Dan Rogerson) and the other by the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford). They both raise issues that deserve serious consideration. In fairness, during the course of the Bill's consideration in Committee, the Minister said that he would look at some of those issues, in particular the question of the property owner levy in business improvement districts, which is the subject of the new clause tabled by the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich, and the issue of business's involvement in the delivery and oversight of the business rate supplements project, which I and other hon. Members raised.
	We have not yet received an inkling of the Government's thinking on those matters, although I am sure that it will emerge in the debate today. However, given that the House is not overburdened with business at the moment, it might have been better to devise a programme motion that allowed for more reflection on those issues, so that we could consider whether, if my hon. Friends and I are unsuccessful in winning our principal point of opposition to the Bill, we could at least do more to ameliorate any unforeseen and perverse impacts on certain sectors of the business community. For that reason, we shall seek to oppose the programme motion.

John Redwood: I share the concern expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill). There is also a general point to be made here. How much longer will the Government go on with this absurd process of guillotining and timetabling every Bill? Under previous Governments of both parties, most Bills went through this House without any guillotine whatever. They went through in the time that the House felt they needed. Sometimes we needed less time than the Government might have thought, and sometimes we needed more. Governments of both parties accommodated the wish and will of the House on the ground that this is the democratic Chamber, and the place in which we ought to be able to talk sensibly about a Bill for as long as it takes to deal with any problems.
	This is a particularly nasty and spiteful little Bill. It will impose up to 600 million of taxation on business at a time when business is running out of money and when the grotesque mismanagement of the money supply and the banking system in this country by the Government and their regulators has left business in a very weak position. Now we see them back for third helpings wanting up to 600 million more out of businesses' coffers at a time when they are having to worry about how they pay the gas bill or the staff wages, or keep in business at all.
	I do not know for how long the House would like to discuss the Bill, but I do not understand why the Government cannot let us discuss it for as long as we think it should take. They may get a pleasant surprise; some of its stages may take less time than they have laid down in their motion. However, surely the least that they could do in the circumstances would be to give us the freedom to express ourselves and to have the debate that we want.
	This is a revenue-raising Bill. This great House of Commons built its democratic strength on being able to challenge how much money was raised and how it was spent. It is doing a dreadful job of that at the moment. Huge sums of money go through without our having the opportunity to discuss and challenge them in the normal way, as we saw with this week's 20 billion supplementary estimate, which was not even down on the Order Paper for debate and went through on the nod. This 600 million should not go through on the Government's timetable but according to the will of the House.
	I urge the Minister, at this late stage, to do the decent thing by withdrawing the guillotine motion and letting us discuss this properly. If it takes longer than until 7 o'clock tonight, what is the problem? We are paid to do our job. I am happy to stay here a bit later if there are lots of colleagues with sensible points to make, so why are the Government not willing? Why will they not do the decent thing?

Daniel Rogerson: I entirely agree with the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) and the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill). Those who have been following our debates on the Bill closely are likely to be those who will be affected by it, including the representative organisations that have taken the trouble to contact hon. Members and talk to us. However, many of the businesses that will be affected probably do not yet understand how big an impact this might have on them. As we heard from the right hon. Member for Wokingham, there are huge pressures on business at the moment, and the issues on which business people will rightly be concentrating are staying in business, managing to get the finance that they need from banks, and so on. Liberal Democrat Members are certainly willing to explore the issue, provided that those who are to pay any extra levy have the final say through a ballot, which we will discuss later.
	The undue haste with which the measure is being pushed through is not the proper way to proceed. If hon. Members feel that they need more time to tease out the issues and explore them in more detail, they should have that time. This legislation is potentially very serious in terms of the extra burden that it could place on businesses without their having the opportunity to comment on it in their local area. That is why I share the concerns that have been raised about the nature of motion before us.

Mark Field: Having served on the Public Bill Committee, I pay tribute to the Minister for the work that was done during the evidence-gathering sessions. We had the opportunity to carry out a pretty full analysis of what the Bill was about. However, I endorse the words of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood). He did not serve on the Committee, but he recognises the Bill's huge importance to the financing of large-scale infrastructure projects; I suspect that it will even go beyond that. That will affect our constituents throughout the UK, not least because much of this money will be raised through a supplementary charge on local businesses during difficult times.
	It is regrettable that these constraints have been imposed by business managers; I accept that the Minister may not necessarily be directly to blame. Given that other elements of our business have fallen away quite easily, and that may well apply to much of the work in the next week or two, given what is likely to be dealt with, it is surprising that this did not warrant a full day's debate instead of being truncated to four hours.
	Given that the motion is likely to go to a vote, the danger is that the longer I and colleagues speak in this debate, the more we reduce the amount of time available for proper scrutiny, and there are important matters to be debated later on. This is regrettable. I hope that even if the Minister decides not to take on board our concerns at this juncture, he will at least consider them and ensure that when we discuss such crucial Bills in the future involving tax-raising we can deal with them properly.

John Redwood: Is this not an unreasonable pressure to place on us? There is nothing wrong with debating whether the House should receive this summary treatment or be given a proper length of time for consideration, but why should that be taken out of the time spent on the Bill? It is absolutely outrageous. This is all part of the thuggery of this Government's approach towards the House of Commons. They will not let us have time to discuss anything: they say, If you discuss A, you can't discuss B. They need to get used to democracy.

Mark Field: I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend's every word. I only hope that there are not too many hostages to fortune for a future Conservative Government and that we will ensure we do not go down this path when these matters arise.
	I will not detain the House any further. I hope that the Minister will take on board our concerns even if he will not allow a longer debate today. These are very important issues that affect all of us as constituency Members, and they deserve full and proper consideration by this House.

Brian Binley: This programme motion surprises me. We hear many fine words from the Government about the importance of small and medium-sized businesses, but see little action. We have talked a lot about giving money to that sector through the banks, but it is not getting through, and we still do not get a reaction from the Government that suggests they really understand that.
	However, that is not what we are discussing. We are talking about loading more financial burdens on to small and medium-sized businesses from April 2010. I bet you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that many local authorities will jump on this bandwagon, not least because they consider that they have been starved of cash over recent years and see this as an opportunity to do a little more than they have been able to hitherto. I suppose that that could be considered a good thing.
	The Minister will know how many business organisations have objected to this measure. He will know how much they fear the role of local government in extracting more money from them.

Greg Knight: Why is my hon. Friend surprised by the motion, given that this Government have a history of curtailing debate?

Brian Binley: I will be delighted to answer that if I can get into the mindset of the Government, which is difficult. I would have thought that they would not want this motion because they wanted to make it clear to the business communities affected that they wanted it to be fully debated. The eyes of the business community are on us at this moment. That community is very aware of the Bill and deeply concerned about it. It has made representations in sizeable numbers and of sizeable length. I would have thought that the Government were concerned about that particular constituency, as they are opinion formers who talk to the electorate and come into contact with them all the time. I would have thought that, with an election looming, the Government may feel that that was a good reason to want to prove that they were being fair to small business. The fact is, however, that they are not being fair to small business, because they are not providing the opportunity to have this measure fully and properly debated without the constraints of a programme motion. That is why I am surprised by the motion. I hope that the Government will reconsider at this last moment and withdraw it.

John Healey: I quite understand why the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) and his friends are using the programme motion to make arguments that go well beyond the scope of the Bill, and well beyond the issue of the scrutiny that the House will, quite properly, give the subjects before it this afternoon, once we are able to get on to them. He was right to say that the Bill has been well debated so far, so let me remind him of something as he tries to argue for more time this afternoon than the Government have proposed. I say this to the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Dan Rogerson), too, who accuses the Government of undue haste. We had three very good evidence sessions, as the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) said. We then agreed to hold six scrutiny sessions. We finished early on the fifth, and we did not need the sixth. The Bill was, as the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst said, well debated and properly scrutinised in the Public Bill Committee.
	The programme motion gives the House ample time to do its job properly. I urge my hon. Friends to support the programme motion if the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst insists on opposing it.

Question put.
	 The House divided: Ayes 255, Noes 180.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Business Rate Supplements Bill

Consideration of Bill, not amended in the Public Bill Committee

New Clause 1
	  
	Project Delivery Board

'(1) Where a levying authority imposes a BRS it shall set up a body corporate called the Project Delivery Board (in this Act referred to to as the Board) to oversee delivery of the project to be funded by the BRS.
	(2) Schedule [Project Delivery Board] is about the Board.'. (Dan Rogerson.)
	 Brought up, and read the First time.

Daniel Rogerson: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment 1, page 13, line 6, leave out clause 19.
	New schedule 1 'Project Delivery Board
	1 A Board shall be established at the first instance of an initial prospectus being published for the imposition of an approved BRS.2 A Board shall exisit for the period in which the BRS is in existence.3 The members of the Board are to be appointed by the relevant levying authority in the following way
	(a) a third are to be representatives from the affected local authority;
	(b) a third are to be representatives from the affected local business community;
	(c) the remainder is to be made up of members appointed as thought appropriate by the relevant levying authority.
	4 In appointing members to the Board the levying authority must have regard to the desirability of securing that the Board is able to perform its functions effectively and efficiently.5 Where two or more levying authorities are acting jointly by virtue of a BRS the Board shall be established by arrangement between those levying authorities.6 The Board's functions are to be specified by regulations.7 Regulations under paragraph 6 must be made by the Secretary of State within 90 days of the commencement of this Act.8 Regulations under paragraph 6 may authorise a levying authority to use a prescribed proportion of such sums as it collects or recovers in respect of a BRS to meet expenses incurred by the Board.9 Expenses incurred under paragraph 8 may not extend to a salary for any Board member.'.
	Amendment 16, in schedule 1, page 22, line 16, at end insert
	'11A A description of the arrangements by which persons paying the BRS shall
	(a) be kept informed of what monies have been raised in pursuance of the BRS and how they have been expended, and
	(b) be represented upon the governing body of any organisation set up for the purposes of delivering the objectives of the BRS, or, if such organisation is not to be set up, how such persons are to be involved in the oversight of the delivery of such objectives.'.

Daniel Rogerson: As we heard in the previous debate, the Bill is attracting increasing attention from business people throughout the country whose business may be affected, should the local authority or a group of local authorities in their area choose to opt for the mechanism set out in the Bill in order to fund a local infrastructure project. Although I said on Second Reading that my party is not opposed to the principle of a business contribution to important infrastructure projects, we believe that safeguards are needed so that the businesses affected feel that they have an input, first, into the proposal being drawn up, and secondly, into whether the proposal meets with approval, as we shall discuss later.
	Businesses and organisations that I have spoken to felt that the business improvement districts process was valuable because it enabled the continuing engagement of the business community in the delivery of a project, so that businesses can be reassured that the project is proceeding to schedule and in the way originally envisaged, and so that they can make a contribution to delivery through their experience in delivering similar projects in the private sector.
	The new clause would set up a project delivery board as a mechanism for businesses that were making a contribution through business rate supplement, local authority representatives and others appointed to the board to enable them to come together to ensure that there was adequate oversight of the project as progressed. The positive relations that, hopefully, would have been fostered during the putting together of the prospectus would continue, increasing opportunities for joint working.
	As we heard in Committee, many hon. Members consider it important to put on the record that relationships between local authorities and the business community are much better now than they have been in the past. I know that the Minister and his colleagues have used that point to argue that the ballot is not necessary in all circumstances.

Mark Field: The hon. Gentleman and the Minister have both said that the relationship between businesses and local authorities is profound, particularly in the case of high- profile business regeneration in our inner cities, but does the hon. Gentleman not have some concerns that the third element, the residential population, especially in our bigger cities, has often been left out? How would he try to ensure that there was input from residential communities whose vibrancy is an important part of ensuring that such initiatives are maintained, particularly in our inner-city areas, where they are most likely to take place?

Daniel Rogerson: The hon. Gentleman raises a good point. In his constituency there is an organisation that represents a small residential community which does not participate as strongly in elections to that body as does the business community represented in the Corporation of London, although I note from the press that that may change and that there are moves afoot for residents to mount more of a challenge at the next elections.
	From my party's perspective, the important thing is that local authorities represent the residential community. They are elected by the residential community, so it is crucial that the local authority is well represented on the board. It is the levying authority or part of the group of levying authorities and will have consulted its electorate and been elected on a platform to deliver projects such as those that may be proposed. That is a safeguard, but schedule 1 also sets out that a third of the board could be appointed by the levying authority so, for example, if the project was specifically relevant to an area where there was an active residents association, I can see no reason why someone from that association could not be co-opted to the board to represent the voice of the residents, as the hon. Gentleman suggests.
	As I was saying, it is necessary to reassure the business community that its voice matters not just in putting together the proposal and signing up to it, but in the ongoing delivery of it. The board would be an additional means of fostering positive relations between local authorities and the local business community. Those relationships are undoubtedly much stronger, but the fact that all hon. Members have been lobbied by business organisations about the Bill proves that there are still issues to be overcome.
	One of the matters raised time and again by businesses is, sadly, concerns about the delivery of certain local projects. The new clause would help to reassure businesses that its voice would be heard and would be central to the delivery of the BID. If the business community had any concerns about business rate supplements being levied for purposes not entirely set out in the prospectusI am sure the Minister will tell me that that is not possible and that there are safeguards in place to protect against thatit would be reassured by having its representatives at the heart of the process.
	In the debate on the programme motion, we heard from the Minister that we had excellent evidence sessions. He is right. Hon. Members in all parts of the Committee agreed that one of the most important contributions was that of Dr. Julie Grail from British BIDs. In her evidence to us at our second sitting on Tuesday 20 January she said:
	With regard to the business rate supplement, we have heard a lot today about concern with the ballot...it is not just about the ballot... it is about managing the relationship going forward. One huge value that we have seen coming out of BIDs is that it has truly brought together local government and the business community. A danger about the business rates supplement is that it could rip it apart again. [ Official Report, Business Rate Supplements Public Bill Committee, 20 January 2009; c. 46, Q199.]
	Of course, that is not the intention, but there clearly are concerns in the business community about that. We have a model in BIDs showing how positive relationships can be fostered and can deliver projects that respond to local need and ensure that everybody has a say in their ongoing management. If there was that model and it was successful for the local sorts of projects that bids deliver, we could adapt it to cover some of the bigger schemes that affect a wider area and which, it is hoped, the BRS could play a part in delivering.
	According to the evidence from the head of the CBI's property group, if the business community were not consulted about a scheme, there would be considerable business unrest. The CBI stressed that it was imperative that businesses got the opportunity to work with local authorities to deliver real economic benefit to an area. A project delivery board would be exactly such an opportunity.
	As I said, the new schedule sets out in a little more detail our initial thoughts about how the project delivery board might be formed and how it might operate. One concern that I am sure we all share is that we could create a body that does the same as other bodies, and duplicateswith all the waste of officers' and business people's valuable time and the costs that that would involve. We have therefore, for example, said that board members should not get any form of salary. That is the tone that we are trying to set: the board would be focused on delivery and would not necessarily have to meet regularly. It would, however, be a mechanism to ensure that everybody was involved in delivering what I hope would be exciting projects that would greatly improve areas, with benefits for residents and the business community.
	Amendment 1 seeks to remove clause 19, which deals with when a levying authority has not given notice to a billing authority before the start of the financial year. The issue came up briefly in Committee. There is concern that billing authorities might have to respond very quickly. That could be an extra burden on them and cause problems for businesses and local authorities as they react. The amendment is to test the Minister's view on the issue. Surely things should be done in good time for the billing authorityin other words, by the start of the financial year so that the bills can go out together and there is no need for supplementary billing or recall of any bills. The business community would certainly welcome that. I am sure that the billing authorities, as distinct from the levying authorities, would also welcome it.
	I am sure that the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) will correct me if I am wrong about his amendment 16, which seeks to define and contain how money raised by the BRS is spent and to make sure that that happens according to the prospectus and that there is no prospect of its being used for other purposes. Furthermore, if a governing body were set up along the lines that I set out in new clause 1, the amendment says that the business community should be involved and sets out how that should happen. Amendment 16 is on lines similar to those of new clause 1, although I think that our new clause, which sets up a project delivery board, is a clearer and, I hope, more defined way of doing things.
	New clause 1 would improve the Bill in respect of the crucial element of business involvement. There is support in the country for the concept of a business rate supplement delivering an important local project, as long as everybody is clear about what the money is being spent on and everybody is signed up and willing to participate and has a continuing voice in the delivery of the project. I look forward to what the Minister has to say on the new clause, but I should say that I am minded to press it to a vote, should the Minister not agree to it.

Bob Neill: I have much sympathy with many of the remarks of the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Dan Rogerson). We debated the issue in detail in Committee and it goes to the heart of how we make the Bill work. My hon. Friends and I make no bones about our position on the Bill in principle: we think it a mistake to use the Bill to impose burdens on businesses, with the exception of Crossrail, in the current climate. That said, if the numbers are against us, let us see what can be done to make the arrangement work better. That is why we are interested in the hon. Gentleman's proposal.
	In Committee, I thought that the Government were not uninterested either; the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Khan), replied in a constructive way, saying that he and his officials would consider the issue. The hon. Member for North Cornwall referred to the powerful evidence of Dr. Grail, whom Committee members from all parties regarded as one of the most impressive of a strong team of witnesses. I hope that the Department will find a way of taking the issue on board.
	Furthermore, there is logic to the proposals, which go right the way back to the Lyons review, which was one of the drivers of the original proposal. It made a point about the importance of securing legitimacy and support from the business community. That works in two ways. The first, to which we shall come later, is the opportunity for businesses to have a genuine say by means of a ballot. The second, every bit as important, is the thought that even if there is a ballotand I hope that there will bethings should not just stop there. Business has to have an ongoing involvement. There is a compelling logic to that; businesses have perhaps the largest stake in the success of a BRS scheme. They are ultimately the potential beneficiaries, but they are footing the bill at the same time. Furthermore, they are likely to have local and sectoral knowledge to bring to the discussion.

Lee Scott: Does my hon. Friend agree that if something was going wrong with a project, the local businesses, because of their nature, would be the first to realise it? Involving local businesses could benefit the project.

Bob Neill: I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend, who makes a powerful point. I was a member of a local authority for 16 years and I worked well with excellent local authority officers. However, the fact is that the business man can bring an additional dimension that neither I as an elected member nor the officers were always in a position to bring. If the BRS or business improvement districts are to work on the basis of genuine collaboration between the local authority as a governing body and the business community, having that ongoing and structurally assured involvement is important.
	Often the business person will spot something because of the nature of the culture that they are in; it might not be spotted by the elected officers who work in the administrative culture. That hugely powerful point should be taken on board. That is why we tabled amendment 16, which covers much the same ground as new clause 1, although there is an additional factor that I shall come to. Like the approach adopted by the hon. Member for North Cornwall, my approach will be influenced by what Ministers say they have been able to do to take the issue forward.
	The point of difference between me and the hon. Gentleman is that his new clause might be a little too prescriptive in specifying the form of delivery vehicle that there must be. In some cases, the project delivery board might be the right vehicle; I can, however, think of some BRS schemes for which it might not be appropriate. That is why, both here and in Committee, I have deliberately cast my amendment in broader terms so that before a decision is madeand before the businesses vote, as I hope they wouldthe prospectus will set out how that ongoing involvement will take place. That will vary and should have the opportunity to do so, according to the nature of the scheme and the scale, place and sector involved. The point is that the information should be set out before the die is cast and the commitment to the BRS scheme is made. Sometimes, it may be done along the lines of the delivery board model, but not always, which is why I would like greater flexibility.
	The other matter that I have added to the original amendment that I tabled in Committee relates to strengthening the requirements on the provision of financial informationan issue that became apparent during the evidence given to the Committee by several people. That provision would introduce an obligation to spell out clearly the moneys that are to be raised in pursuance of the BRS, and what they will be expended on.
	There was some debate in Committee about the definition of the purposes that BRS could be used for. We debated whether it was appropriate to go down the route of defining by exception, which is more or less the scheme adopted in the Bill. It says that the BRS cannot be used for X, Y or Zbroadly, other types of local servicebut is otherwise silent about its application. The view of the bulk of the business community is that we should specify the categories of project that the moneys can be used for. The amendment would attempt to offer a middle way, and if we believe in localism and a ballot on such matters, the prospectus should set out exactly how people will be told, before they decide, what money is being raised and what it will be expended upon.
	An ongoing, iterative process would be involved so that, unlike the current arrangement, it would not just be a question of giving a broad-brush outline of what the project would be, and how much the overall budget would be, including certain other budget heads. I am talking about a more iterative processalmost a report backto keep in touch with the community on what the money had been spent on so far, and what had been raised. It is like the requirement on the board of a company to produce annual accounts. There would be an obligation to provide regular updating, which is in everybody's interest, not least the proponents of the BRS scheme because it is desirable to have the confidence of the business community, and of council tax payers and residents.
	I do not have a firm view on whether we will press these matters to a vote, but we hope for a positive response from the Minister, and our judgment will be largely coloured by that. I hope that he accepts that these are serious issuesI am sure that he and his colleagues do sowhich have not been introduced in a partisan manner, but rather as a result of the evidence that we heard in Committee.

Derek Twigg: I shall make a few brief comments, particularly on new clause 1, because I want to save most of my remarks for the later group dealing with ballots. I pursued an argument in Committee about the changes in local government during the past 15 or 20 years, and the lack of trust. I am not sure whether the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Dan Rogerson) trusts his Liberal Democrat-run councils, but I trust my Labour council to make the right decisions. It is a Labour council that has this year again had a four-star rating, and it has done remarkable work on regeneration and economic delivery in the borough of Halton and working more widely with Merseyside and Cheshire.
	The new clause is over-prescriptive in telling local government what it should do. If I were to criticise what this Government have done over the past 12 years, I would say that we have sometimes been a bit over-prescriptive about local government. My right hon. Friend the Minister, dare I say it, took a different view in a number of areas about trusting local government and giving it some say in decisions. It is fine to legislate, and there must be safeguards; one of the safeguards in the Bill is that the Secretary of State can intervene if the procedures laid down in it are not being followed.
	I feel that there is an in-built distrust of local government in this House, however, and a lack of willingness to give it more freedom to get on and deliver what many local authorities are already delivering through their tremendous economic development and regeneration policies. I believe that the new clause is over-prescriptive, and we should trust local government more. In these difficult economic times, I do not believe for one moment that local government will do something stupid such as putting businesses and jobs at risk in its own area. I do not think that that will happen.

Daniel Rogerson: I was at great pains to say earlier that the relationship between business and local government has improved hugely over the past couple of decades, and that is absolutely rightI remember the hon. Gentleman making that point in Committee. However, we heard evidence in Committee from organisations such as British BIDs to say that the business improvement districts process, through continuing such engagement in a more formalised and recognised way, has been a positive step. The new clause seeks a similar mechanism for the BRS. Although there is a positive relationship in general, when we are talking specifically about an extra levy of cash on business for a specific project, business organisations, and BIDs, which represent everyone involved in those processes, feel that that is a positive model to use.

Derek Twigg: I do not disagree with the hon. Gentleman's comments on what was said during the hearings; powerful representations were made. Lessons have been learned from that process, and the way in which local government has responded, working through partnership and co-operation for the benefit of a particular area, has borne that out. That shows that local government is in such a mindset, and we come down to a particular principle.
	I shall finish on that point. In many areas, local government is responsible for leading regeneration and economic development. It has come a long way during the past 15 or 20 years and we should trust it more. The new clause and some of the comments made by the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) go against that grain, and I fundamentally believe that we should give local government more freedom. We shall no doubt come later to differences as far as Crossrail is concernedwhat we want to allow for it, and what we do in the rest of the country. I believe, however, that we must give local authorities more freedom to get on and work locally. Lots of organisations are working together already, and there are already forums for such decisions to be taken by working in partnership. To be prescriptive about the type of forum concerned is the wrong way to go about things.

Bob Neill: Given the hon. Gentleman's point about the forums and procedures that exist to allow bodies to work together, what is his objection, as far as amendment 16 is concerned, to saying that the prospectus should set out how such working together should take place? Amendment 16 is not trying to prescribe a particular model; it is just saying that the information should be set out.

Derek Twigg: The hon. Gentleman makes my point for me. Why should we do that? In most areasnot every areathese forums already exist, or such co-operation is taking place, so I do not accept what he says. I genuinely believe that we would be telling local government how best to run its local area. I strongly feel that local government should be given the freedom to get on and deliver what is important, working with all the partners in the local area to deliver the sort of improvements that we all want.

Mark Field: The Minister will be aware from previous debates on this matter that I have perhaps a little more sympathy than one or two of my colleagues for the whole principle of business rate supplements. This is not the ideal year for the Bill. Had it been introduced a few years ago, those in my party might not have had the many understandable concerns that we have expressed, representing business interests, given the real financial and economic problems that are facing our businesses.
	I fully support my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) in speaking to amendment 16, so I must express some opposition to the comments made by the hon. Member for Halton (Derek Twigg). I worry that the credibility of BRS schemes is crucial. There is a risk of such schemes, particularly the longer ones, seeming to be at quite a distance from the local authority. During what might be a 10 or 12-year schemea bigger type of regeneration project perhapsa range of different councillors may be involved. A certain political party will be in office when a BRS scheme is put into place, and by the time it comes to fruition a different one might be in office. It is therefore all the more important that we have an ongoing input from business in the way that we have set out.
	I agree with a number of the comments that have been made, although I have some sympathy with what the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Dan Rogerson) proposed. The notion of having a project delivery board, in the way he sets out, would be over-prescriptive and highly unwieldy. It would detract from what we are trying to achieve. The hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I consider the proposal in the context of Crossrail. How on earth could we have a project delivery board that would avoid being anything more than an extra layer of bureaucracy that left us open to a lot of confusion, if it were given a project of such size that it took into account the views of people from 33 different boroughs?

Daniel Rogerson: I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman is exploring the matter and supports us on the general concept, although I appreciate that he is unhappy with some of the details of the new clause. We have been at pains throughout the process to point out that there is a distinction between Crossrail and projects in the rest of the country. Indeed, his own party has sought to do that as well. Although I believe that a mechanism could be found to ensure that local government and the business community in London are represented, we need to consider closely how the system will operate in other areas. We are considering a specific case in London, but the Bill may well be applied across the whole country.

Mark Field: I appreciate that the Bill will not necessarily create fully fledged Crossrails across the board.
	The hon. Gentleman made a comparison between the proposed business rate supplements and business improvement districts. I believe that we will return to that matter in other debates this afternoon. It is crucial that we draw a firm distinction between the two. My biggest fear is that by putting the Bill on the statute book, we will allow it to be used for small infrastructure projects that should be covered not by a BRS but by BID-type schemes. A BID works by being highly localised and highly focused, and by working for businesses that, as in my constituency, are often within a couple of roads or a small number of blocks of each other. Those schemes work extremely well, and having some sort of delivery board mechanism makes sense in the context of a highly localised scheme.
	My concern, which is implicit in all the amendments in this group, is that no local authority should be able to say, Right, we've now got our BRS scheme through and we do not need to bother with worrying about the concerns of business or anybody else for the next 10 or 12 years, or however long the project takes. That would be wrong, which is why I support amendment 16. Equally, we should avoid highly prescriptive man-management that would only provide a further level of bureaucracy and confusion. I hope that the Government will give some thought here and in another place to finding a way to ensure that the credibility of BRS schemes is maintained. I know that we will come on to ballots later this afternoon, but my biggest concern is that without some safeguard for business, there is a real risk that credibility will be undermined and the system will simply be seen as another opportunity for a cash-grab from the Government, rather than used for a specific purpose that benefits a business community in infrastructure terms.

John Redwood: I see the need for something that will satisfy the business community that a project is worthy and well managed, but I share the concerns of those who believe that imposing a board in every case might be difficult, inappropriate or unnecessarily bureaucratic. Under the terms of new clause 1, it is difficult to know who from the private sector side would want to volunteer to sit on such a board. We learn from new schedule 1 that there would be no remuneration, and we can imagine that in some cases the meetings would be long and frequent.
	Anyone considering sitting on such a board would want to know what their legal duties and responsibilities were and what the consequences might be if something went wrong. Would it be a board in the legal sense, on which a director sits only if he is aware that serious legal duties and requirements are placed on him, and aware of what provision is to be made for officer insurance, professional indemnity and all the other things that anyone placed in that position of trust deals with? If so, that would represent a labour due imposed on top of the cash charge that the business community will be invited to expend. It is bad enough that a company will have to pay the tax, but worse for it to be told that it must put up some people to sit on the supervising board so as not to make an even bigger mess of the scheme. That would mean that they were invited to give of their time free, on top of having to give their money to the project in question. I see certain difficulties in that.
	I assume that in line 3 of proposed subsection (1) of new clause 1, we do not need the word to twice, and that that is a typing error or misdrafting that could be dealt with.
	New schedule 1 provides what support there is for the idea of the board, but it is quite slim. We are told in paragraph 6 that the board's functions would be specified by regulations. If that idea were to go any further, those regulations would be of great interest to the House, as they are where the meat of the system would be. Currently, we know nothing about the intended responsibilities, duties or legal requirements, the degree of surveillance required or the necessary reporting, accountability and so on.
	We learn from the new schedule that the members of the board are to be appointed in the following way. One third are to be representatives from the affected local authority; one can understand that. However, only one third are to be representatives of those payingthe affected local business community. The remainderone's mental arithmetic might run so far as to say the other one thirdare to be
	members appointed as thought appropriate by the relevant levying authority.
	In other words, the authority seeking the money and imposing the tax on the local community could have two thirds of the board members. It could therefore win any simple majority vote and a lot of weighted majority votes up to the two-thirds threshold. That would give it effective control.
	I am sure that the framers of the new schedule have it in mind that the local authority will be well disposed towards the local community and want people of independence and stature on the board. However, that is not what the new schedule actually says.

Brian Binley: The objective of allowing scrutiny is to allay suspicion and fear. The appointment of the whole board would be in the hands of local authorities, some of which are very unpopular. In my area we currently have a Liberal local authority that is immensely unpopular. Does my right hon. Friend agree that suspicion would not be allayed if such power were invested in the hands of such an authority?

John Redwood: Yes. I do not want to make this party political, although I have had experience of what my hon. Friend mentions, but a council of any kind could become unpopular. It might make itself unpopular by proposing one of the supplementary levies provided for in the Bill, no doubt on top of a large council tax increase at the capping threshold. Yet under the new schedule, local authorities would not just be given the power to have a third of the representatives and to choose the third who are perhaps intended to be more independent, although that is not stated. They would be given the power to choose the whole lot.
	The business community might choose for the board two or three good people who, despite all the obvious aggravation and the lack of wisdom involved in sitting on one of these things, decided that they wanted to do so because there was a big project. The local authority would have every right to say, No, we're not having them. We would rather have some friendly, helpful people who are of our political disposition or agree with us about this project, so that there would be no grit in the oyster and no challenge to how the project was going ahead. The new schedule reveals a weak system, which in certain circumstances would prevent the board from acting as an accountable body with control over costs and responsibility for better project management. If a local authority were determined to drive something through, against the interests of its electorate, it could do so. That is a great weakness in the system that is suggested.
	We are told that a board would be established
	at the first instance of an initial prospectus being published for the imposition of an approved BRS,
	and that it would continue for the whole period for which the BRS existed. That means that it would be a long task in many cases, and that, too, would make it more difficult to get people of good quality on the board. We are told:
	In appointing members to the Board the levying authority must have regard to the desirability of securing that the Board is able to perform its functions effectively and efficiently.
	That is a very wide suggestion, and I do not believe that it requires a local authority to have much discipline in choosing people of substance who are likely to provide the critical analysis and accountability that we would like. We are told that everything else will be sorted out in regulationsdoubtless, they are still to be drafted.
	I therefore have more sympathy with the more wide-ranging amendment 16, in which my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) leaves open the question whether we need such a body, and correctly directs attention to the lack of accountability in the projects if we do not provide for some sort of mechanism. We are here, even at such a late stage in the Bill's progress, to tell the Government that there is a genuine problem of accountability. The system is unsatisfactory anyway, in that it enables the imposition of big levies on local communities in times of stress. If there is no proper system for engaging them and getting them to believe that a project is well run and that the expenditure is properly controlled, that makes matters far worse. Amendment 16 gives scope for the Government to make regulations under the Bill that might get nearer the mark.
	I therefore hope that the Government will use new clause 1 as a prod and a stimulus to improve their Bill. I do not believe that it is quite right, for the reasons that I identified and for others with which I shall not delay House. Perhaps amendment 16 provides a way forward if the Government are willing, and if they are prepared to produce regulations to give some accountability under the law.

John Healey: We have now moved beyond the programme motion debate and back to the serious scrutiny that has been characteristic of the way in which all hon. Members who have been involved with the Bill have dealt with it. I shall try to respond in kind. I want to encourage the hon. Members for North Cornwall (Dan Rogerson) and for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) to feel that they do not need to press either the new clause or the amendment that they respectively tabled.
	Let me start by looking for common ground. I agree that it is important for businesses to feel confident about the running of any project to which the business rate supplement contributes a funding stream. It is also important that they are kept informed of a project's progress and of the costs that are incurred in running it. However, new clause 1 would over-centralise and is too prescriptive, as other hon. Members have pointed out. I intend to achieve the same end through much more flexible means.
	I urge the hon. Member for North Cornwall to consider that, if the duty on levying authorities to set up a body to oversee the delivery of any project that was funded or part funded by a business rate supplement existedeven if that supplement were a small element of a much larger funding package, which would inevitably have its own governance arrangementsthe authority would still need to establish a project delivery board such as he has described. Although I am with the hon. Gentleman in principle, a moment's pause suggests that, in practice, the new clause would be too prescriptive. It may not work in all circumstances, and the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) rightly asked whether we could imagine it working for the arrangements that are properly in place for Crossrail. The new clause is likely to blur the lines of accountability and could lead to less rather than more effective management of the delivery of any project linked to the business rate supplement.
	The right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) made an important point about the new clause. It specifies that the board should be a body corporate, which has implications for those who would sit on a board. They may face the possibility of being legally liable and responsible for a project over which they have relatively little direct control. Ultimately, responsibility for such a project must rest with those who are put there to take it.
	My preference is in keeping with the arguments that my hon. Friend the Member for Halton (Derek Twigg) presented. The levying authorities, clearly with wide local consultation, are best placed to determine the appropriate governance for a project. It is neither easy nor appropriate to specify that centrally. It should certainly not be done in of the Bill.
	Amendment 16 attempts to introduce a similar provision more flexibly. As the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst said, the delivery board model may not always be appropriate. He wants to ensure that the business rate supplement prospectus makes it clear how those paying it can expect to be informed, especially about the amount of revenue that has been raised and how it is being spent. The Bill already provides for that. Paragraph 11 of schedule 1 requires levying authorities to make clear in their prospectus the way in which those liable for the supplement will be informed about the expenditure incurred on a BRS project. It also requires the authorities to set out how they will provide updates on the work until its completion. In other words, levying authorities will not be able to keep in the dark businesses that pay the business rate supplement.
	Let me be clear and, by doing so, attempt to be helpful. We also expect levying authorities to consider how they will involve businesses in running any project that is funded or part funded by a business rate supplement. Indeed, in the draft statutory guidance that is out for consultation, we have made it clear that authorities should consider how they can involve businesses over and above the specific statutory consultation. Consultation on the draft statutory guidance closes on 17 April.
	Amendment 16 is also too prescriptive. The message in the guidance is clear to authorities: it is important to ensure that those who pay the business rate supplement are informed and involved in running a BRS project. It also gives authorities the scope to determine what is appropriate given the nature of the project and the needs of the local community as well as the desire of local businesses to get involved.
	As I said in Committee, consultation on the statutory guidance is under way and we have put down markers in it. I also made it clear to the Committee that we will consider the points that were made in the debate as part of the consultation.

Bob Neill: I am grateful for the spirit in which the Minister has approached the matter. I do not seek to be needlessly prescriptive and I am grateful for his comments on paragraph 11. I understand the intention behind his point about the statutory guidance, which is out for consultation, but what is the sanction if a levying authority does not come up with the goods under that guidance? We must give the business community some assurance that there is a fall-back and a sanction.

John Healey: The hon. Gentleman has a good memory and I am surprised that he has overlooked our detailed discussion in Committee about the provisions that set out the range of sanctions. Ultimately, the Secretary of State has the power to suspend a business rate supplement. Before that point, there is range of other potential interventions and sanctions, which we discussed.

Bob Neill: The Minister is generous, as always, in giving way. His response may help us crystallise our thinking about what we do. Does he envisage a position whereby the draft statutory guidance, once it is issuedI do not know what his time frame is or how it will fit in with considerations in another placewill set out how the business community is to be involved before a decision is made? I do not want to be unduly prescriptive, but does he understand that moving in and using sanctions is to shut the stable door after the horse has bolted? We want an assurance that people will be informed before they make a decision about a BRS.

John Healey: The guidance is statutory and authorities are therefore clearly expected to follow any terms set out in it, especially when it applies to the way in which they are expected to consider a case for a business rate supplement: consulting on the ideas and involving others, including potential BRS payers, in their preparation. We have published the proposed guidance in draft and we will update it after the consultation closes.
	I have said that we will take into account the points made in this debate and in Committee in coming to our conclusions about the content of that guidance. I hope that the hon. Members for Bromley and Chislehurst and for North Cornwall will both regard that as a sensible and flexible but nevertheless clear and firm way of ensuring the aims that they seek.
	The hon. Member for North Cornwall said that he was testing my view with amendment 1, which would mean that levying authorities in two-tier areas would be able to levy a business rate supplement or vary one only from the beginning of any billing round in April each year. It will certainly be more efficient for billing authorities to collect the supplement at the same time as they collect business rates. That is why we want to encourage, as we are doing, any authorities to collect the supplement in order to do just that.
	As the impact assessment that accompanies the Bill says, and as I explained in Committee, when the business rate supplement is collected as part of the annual billing round, the Bill provides for the costs of that collection to be met from the revenues of the business rate supplement. When the business rate supplement is collected as a separate exercise, the costs of collection would have to be met by the levying authority. There is therefore a clear financial disincentive to do anything other than make the collection part of the annual billing round.
	The hon. Gentleman's proposal is unnecessarily restrictivehe is nodding, which I hope means that he would accept the general argument and not press amendment 1 to a vote. The risk is that if there were a minor delaysay, a monthin a project for any reason, including any reason not connected with the BRS, amendment 1 would require a whole year's delay before that project with the BRS element could get up and running. That is unduly inflexible and gives undue weight to administrative processes rather than to the proper delivery of the projects concerned.
	In summary, hon. Members have ably made their arguments this afternoon. I hope that they will allow us to consider those arguments as part of the current consultation on the statutory guidance. We are concerned about the credibility of any BRS-supported project, as the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster urged that we should be, as well as about the delivery of those projects. The guidance is clear and so is our aim through that guidance. Our approach is more flexible than that proposed either by new clause 1 or amendment 16. It allows for arrangements that will properly inform and involve the business community, and BRS payers in particular. Our approach will also mean that any proper arrangements can suit the area, the project and the BRS scheme concerned. I hope that the hon. Members for North Cornwall and for Bromley and Chislehurst will not need to press their amendments to a Division.

Daniel Rogerson: I am pleased to have prompted a debate about the issue, if nothing else, although I sense that there may be a range of views not entirely sympathetic to new clause 1.
	I am also grateful to hear the Minister's determination to ensure that wherever such a project goes forward, the business community will have a role in its ongoing delivery and in the oversight of it. As the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) said, the intention behind amendment 16 is to ensure that that is the case. However, I have noticed a tendency in other Bills for things to be left to be clarified later. Although I sadly do not have the resources at my disposal that the Minister does to test every thought that I have and to ensure that everything is drafted as it should be, I wanted new clause 1 to make the Bill more prescriptive and say that there must be a body that formalises the business involvement in an ongoing relationship.
	I was also seeking to look at how the BIDs model works. The hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) is absolutely right that BIDs and the BRS will do different things in different places. However, as models for delivery, they provide us with a starting point. I am seeking to press for such a vehicle with new clause 1. The right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) was keen to pick holes in new clause 1 and to look for areas of disagreement. However, I welcome the fact that he and all other Conservatives Members who have spoken are keen that there should be a safeguard for businesses, so that they can be confident that they have a role to play.

John Redwood: I was not trying to pick holes in new clause 1; I was trying to say that we need a structure that will work. That is what we are groping towards, but it is a pity that the Minister did not tell us whether the schemes would normally be local authority-run schemes or private finance initiative or public-private partnership-type schemes. However, we have to build on whatever command structure is in place and have accountability and representation.

Daniel Rogerson: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that clarification. However, I am concerned that amendment 16 may not be quite as reassuring to the business community, in that it still puts the onus on the local authority to come up with the means.
	The right hon. Gentleman talked about the proportion of business people on the body proposed by new clause 1 being only a third. However, the project delivery board would look at the oversight of the whole project. The BRS is part of the finance package, so it would be unfair for the business community to form all or half of that body if its funding was less than that.
	Were new clause 1 to be added to the Bill, it might require some clarification, perhaps through discussions in another place. I am seeking to get something in the Bill that sets out clearly that the business community will have a role in the ongoing discussions on how a project is delivered. We are talking about a long-term commitment, and the right hon. Gentleman said that it was unfair to expect the business community to take on that commitment. I have spoken to business organisationsfor example, when looking at BIDs and other systemsand it is clear that they can usually find a way through their representative bodies to ensure that the business community's voice is heard.
	Although I am pleased to hear that the Minister is looking at the issues closely and saying to local authorities in the guidance, You need to show us how you're going to involve the business community, I am concerned that the nuclear option of the Secretary of State stepping in and saying, You cannot proceed, will not be used in many circumstances. Given that that sanction will be used only in rare circumstances, there is nothing that gives me huge confidence that there will be a systematic way for the business voice to be heard in the ongoing management of a project.
	I am grateful to hear what the Minister said about amendment 1. I accept that there may be a need in some circumstances to move beyond that flexibility, but he has put on record his determination that the standard practice should be for everything to be in place at the beginning of the financial year, so that everybody knows what is coming and can plan accordingly.
	To sum up my response to this debate, perhaps my new clause 1 is not perfect, but the Bill, too, is imperfect. By seeking to divide the House on my new clause, I hope that we can improve the Bill slightly and leave it to colleagues in another place to tighten up the detail.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
	 The House divided: Ayes 56, Noes 261.

Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 2
	  
	BIDs: supplementary provisions

'(1) The 2003 Act is amended as follows.
	(2) After section 41 insert
	41A Additional arrangements where business rate supplement imposed
	(1) In any business improvement district where a business rate supplement under the Business Rate Supplements Act 2009 has been imposed, a property owner BID levy may be imposed on the owners of a non-domestic property, or a class of such owners, in the district.
	(2) A non-domestic ratepayer who is liable to pay the BID levy on a hereditament is not liable for a property owner BID levy on that hereditament, and may not take part in a property owner ballot in respect of that hereditament..
	(3) In section 46(1) (description of non-domestic ratepayers liable for BID levy to be specified) insert at end , and, where applicable, the description of property owners who are to be liable..
	(4) In section 49 (BID proposals) after subsection (2) insert
	(3) A levy on property owners may come into force only where it is approved by a ballot of the property owners in the proposed business improvement district who are liable for the proposed property owner BID levy..
	(5) In section 50 (approval in ballot) after subsection (6) insert
	(7) A property owner BID levy is not be to regarded as approved by a ballot held for the purposes of section 49(3) unless the two conditions set out in subsections (2) to (6) are satisfied..
	(6) In section 55(2) (regulations about ballots)
	(a) in paragraph (b) after ratepayers, insert and property owners, and
	(b) after paragraph (h) insert
	(i) enabling the billing authority to construct a list of all property owners in the BID area for the purposes of holding a property owner ballot and billing..'. (Mr. Raynsford.)
	 Brought up, and read the First time.

Nick Raynsford: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 4, in title, line 3, after 'development;', insert
	'to make provision about business improvement districts in consequence of the imposition of a business rate supplement;'.

Nick Raynsford: New clause 2 concerns the interface between business rate supplements and business improvement districts. Although both relate to the promotion of the local economy, BIDs are different from BRSs in a number of respects, as the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) pointed out. In Committee we examined the differences between the two, highlighting the degree to which the BRS is more likely to support larger-scale, longer-term investmentincluding infrastructurewhereas BIDs have focused primarily on short-term improvements to enhance the attractiveness, commercial success and security of retail and commercial areas. However, there are similarities. Both are based on the principle of partnership between local authorities and business to promote the local economy. Both involve a levy on the ratepayerwho is the occupier rather than the owner of the propertyon top of the normal business rate.
	As the Minister responsible for overseeing the introduction of BIDs some six or seven years ago, I am naturally pleased that they have proved to be a success, particularly becausethis is another feature common to both BIDs and BRSsthey were not uniformly welcomed when we introduced them. I recall the Opposition's hostility when we debated the local Government Act 2003. I hope that, just as with the passage of time they have come to recognise that their opposition to BIDs was misplaced, they will come to see over the passage of time that their current opposition to the BRS is also misguided.
	Over those six years, there has been a significant growth in the number of BIDs and in their contribution to improving the economic performance of commercial areas in towns and cities all over the country. Dr. Julie Grail is the chief executive of British BIDs, the umbrella body for BIDs throughout the country. During one of our evidence sessions at the beginning of the Bill's Committee stageI join the Members who have rightly emphasised the value of those sessionsshe told us that 76 BIDs were now operating throughout the country, nearly 20 of them in London.
	BIDs can be set up only after a yes vote on a dual-key basis by all the businesses that will be liable for the levy. They are also subject to periodic renewal ballots. The key issue that prompted the new clause was the fact that 14 existing London BIDs are due to be subject to such ballots within the next two years. At precisely the same time, business rate payers will begin to face the business rate supplement for Crossrail. Not surprisingly, Dr. Grail and many others who have been involved in the successful development of BIDs fear that when confronted with both the BRS for Crossrail and the ongoing cost of supporting their local BID, some business rate payers, particularly in difficult economic circumstances, will conclude that they cannot afford to continue to support the BID.

Angela Watkinson: How can participating businesses agreeing to the establishment of a business improvement district know the extent of their future liability?

Nick Raynsford: One of the arrangements that has applied throughout the evolution of BIDs is a proper procedure for defining the objectives of a BID and the level of contribution that will be expected before the proposition is put to a vote, so that when business rate payers come to vote, they will know whether they are receiving value for money. That is a well-established arrangement, and all who are experienced in the way BIDs have operated know that it has proved successful. When businesses feel that a BID will enhance the value of their area, they are likely to vote yesand, as Dr. Grail pointed out, they have done so in 76 areas.

Angela Watkinson: Does that mean that when the initial objective has been met and a new project has been proposed, the participating businesses will be entitled to another vote?

Nick Raynsford: I am sorry if the hon. Lady did not entirely follow what I said earlier. As I explained, the BID legislation provides for renewal ballots every five years, which means that a BID must submit its proposal to the business rate payers who contribute to it every time it seeks a renewal of its status.
	Unlike the BRS for Crossrail, which relates to a single, albeit very large, project, BID schemes usually involve a variety of different arrangements. A scheme may be intended to improve security, perhaps by providing additional policing to enhance shoppers' safety in a retail area. It may involve environmental improvements to make an area more attractive to visitors, or transport improvements to make it more accessible. It may involve promotional work to attract people who would otherwise not be aware of what was available in a shopping centre. It is entirely up to the BID body itself to decide on its programme. However, that programme must be set out in advance of the first ballot, and when it is due for renewal the BID will be required to set out its programme for the following year. There is a well-established procedure enabling the parties invited to contribute to BIDs to know what they would be getting, and to say either yes or no to it in a ballot.
	Although BIDs have generally been successful and are widely seen as such throughout the country, and although the improvements to the local economy which they support are rather different from those supported by the BRSwhich, in the case of London, will support the hugely important Crossrail schemethere is a real risk that, following the introduction of BRSs, several BIDs that are due to be subjected to renewal ballots in the next two years will not survive. That, in my view, would be a very unfortunate consequence. The purpose of my new clause is to find a solution that does not pit BIDs against BRSs, or put either at risk.
	The new clause addresses the problem by returning to an issue that has been debated long and hard since BIDs were first introduced: the contribution that might be made by property owners in bid areas to support activity from which they stand to benefit considerably. The BID model was originally developed in north America, where the contributions from the business side come from property owners rather than occupiers. In adapting the model to United Kingdom circumstances, in which business rates are levied on occupiers, we concluded that the BID levy should also apply to occupiers. However strong the argument was for imposing the levy on landownersand we received forceful representations from many quarters, including property owners who felt that that was right and equitableit would have required the establishment of a wholly new register of commercial property ownership throughout the country so that property owners could be balloted in the first place and the local authority could subsequently impose the levy, assuming that there was a positive vote. Not only would that have imposed significant cost burdens on local authorities, but it would have been a major bureaucratic exercise and, crucially, delayed the implementation of the BID scheme. At the time, there was a real appetite among the business community, town centre managers and many others to get a move on with BIDs to ensure that the benefits that many saw would come from the establishment of BIDs could be achieved.

Brian Binley: I understand the thrust of the new clause and I have some sympathy with it. However, my concern is twofold. First, if the property owner is liable for the BID, at the next lease review is not the cost likely to be placed on the lease? The business user is therefore likely to face the cost anyway. Secondly, how does this relate to accounting? If there is a BID in one town but not in another, the cost may increase in one town but not in another. However, competition between the two may be keen.

Nick Raynsford: If the hon. Gentleman bears with me, he will hear precisely how I believe that the introduction of an owners levy in parallel with the occupiers levynot as an alternativewill help to avoid the problem of costs being passed from one to the other. In addition, the concept of a BID is entirely compatible with the concept of local democracy. Local communities should be free to decide to do things that they think will enhance their area. Obviously, they will take account of the competition issue. If the businesses in one area do not think it will be to their benefit, they will not vote for it. It is entirely a matter for local decision, and in this case the vote comes from the local business community.

Mark Field: I am sure the right hon. Gentleman agrees that one of the most important tenets of any tax, to make it as efficient as possible, is certainty. Presumably that was one of the issues when six years ago it was determined that BIDs would not go down the route of a levy on property owners. How much evidence is there on the certainty of property ownership? Often it will be difficult to get the money from offshore companies. In introducing the new clause, has he given any thought to how that problem can be overcome?

Nick Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman raises a pertinent point. I am going to address that in detail later in my speech, so if he will bear with me, I will come back to the point, which is relevant and has exercised people. I should stress at this stage that it was not so much a problem of certainty that deterred us from introducing a property owners levy as a basis for BIDs when BIDs were introduced. The obstacle was the cost and time involved in creating a register throughout the country, which would have been necessary, when there was no certainty that BIDs would receive positive votes anywhere. There could have been a lot of abortive cost. Now we are in a different situation, as I will explain.
	The Government took the decision, and I do not in any way resile from it, in 2002-03 to proceed with the BIDs on the basis of an occupier levy that could be easily and quickly implemented on the basis of the existing business rates register. At the same time we encouraged the concept of voluntary contributions from property owners to supplement the levy on occupiers, so as to spread the burden and ensure that owners had an involvement and were not excluded from the BID. That has worked reasonably well in a number of BID areas, but not everywhere. It has worked to a considerable degree in key retail locations such as London's West End, in the area including Regent street, Oxford street and Bond street, which has a BID: the New West End Company, which has been very successful. It has an annual BID levy income of 2.5 million from property occupiers, but it receives an additional 900,000 a year in voluntary contributions from property owners, so the contributions from owners represent about 36 per cent. of the levy income.

Mark Field: It is probably worth making the case that there is one very large landowner in that area: the Crown Estate. Under the scheme that the right hon. Gentleman is envisaging for BIDs and the BRS, property ownership would be much more disparate, at least at freehold level, which would make it far more difficult. He clearly recognises that the New West End Company may have certain benefits and advantages over many of the other 76 BIDs.

Nick Raynsford: That is absolutely right and I am not making my case solely on the basis of the New West End Company, but I am using it to illustrate how a levy has been supplemented by a voluntary contribution from the property owners. However, even there, as I will explain, there are problems.
	Dame Judith Mayhew Jonas, who heads the New West End Company, was part of a group of interested parties I was pleased to have the opportunity to take on a delegation to meet the Minister just last week. During the debate that we had on the subject in Committee, he offered to have a meeting with representatives of British BIDs, individual BIDs and the British Property Federation. We had that meeting and I am grateful to him for making that opportunity available. It was a constructive discussion. Dame Judith highlighted a number of weaknesses with the voluntary contribution system. First, it is unstable and unpredictable. Whereas the BID levy is fixed for the full five-year duration of the BID before it comes up for renewal, voluntary contributions can be cut off at any time. Given the significance of the sums900,000 a year in the case of the New West End Companythat makes forward planning and budgeting much more difficult.
	Secondly, although current owners may commit to a voluntary contribution, there is no guarantee that their commitment will be taken up by their successors if property changes hands, and BIDs are concerned that income is reducing from voluntary contributions as a result of insolvencies and change of ownership.

John Redwood: Is that not the point? All these schemes were dreamed up in a totally different world of rising property prices, rising rentals and strong tenant demand. In a world of crashing property rentals, many voids and falling asset values, it seems that it is no longer appropriate to try to extract the added value when value is being subtracted.

Nick Raynsford: On the contrary. The right hon. Gentleman will know the importance of major infrastructure investment such as Crossrail to the long-term health of the economy of London. He must be aware that, were we to lose confidence and cancel Crossrail, which would be the implication of not proceeding with the Bill, that would have a devastating long-term impact on London's reputation and its economic viability. It is precisely because it is necessary, even in difficult times, to help to support appropriate investment that will help our economy and business, that such arrangements are necessary.
	British BIDs has told us that income from voluntary contributions in the Heart of London, another central London BID, have reduced by 34 per cent. in its first three years, so there is a risk of declining income through change of ownership. Thirdly, there is growing resentment among the owners who are making voluntary contributions at what they rightly see as freeloading by other property owners in the BID area who get the benefit of the work of the BID without having to make any contribution. For all those reasons, there is a strong case for revisiting the option of introducing a property owner levy in BID areas. That is given added urgency by the introduction of BRS, which, as I have emphasised, could threaten the survival of several BIDs.
	To overcome the objections, notably the cost and time necessary to compile a national property owners register, which prevented this being undertaken when BIDs were introduced, the new clause would apply only in very limited circumstances: first, in areas where BIDs have already been established; and secondly, in areas where a business rate supplement has been introduced. In effect, therefore, the new clause, if it is accepted, will apply only in the early years of business rate supplement within the London area, where there is the only BRS scheme that is likely to be ready to start from 1 April 2010. Even when BRS is picked up in other parts of the country, the provision will apply only in those areas where there is both a BID already in existence and where the BRS scheme is to be applied.
	The provisions in the new clause are permissive; they do not require the imposition of a property owner levy. They allow it in circumstances where the existing BID company, board or governing bodyI wholly take the point about the need for flexibility in such arrangements, which we debated under the previous group of amendmentsdecides that it is in favour of pursuing this, subject to exactly similar balloting arrangements as apply in the case of a property occupier levy. In other words, there must be a double-key ballot: a majority vote among the property occupiers and, for the owners levy, the majority of owners voting yes along with the majority of rateable value. Essentially, there has to be support from both large and small-scale occupiers or owners to ensure success. One cannot simply load a cost on to others. That safeguard has worked well in the case of BIDs, and the new clause provides that that should be applied equally in the case of the owner levy.

Angela Watkinson: I am listening to the right hon. Gentleman most carefully and I think I understood him to say that owners will not be able to offload the additional charge on to occupiers. Is he not concerned that occupiers will pay their additional charge as occupiers and then may be required to pay again when the owner transfers the equivalent sum, or recoups the cost, in additional leasing or renting charges?

Nick Raynsford: That is very much the point raised by the hon. Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Binley) and perhaps I will come to it now. I wanted to get to a relevant stage in what is necessarily a rather complex presentation of the new clause.
	The proposal would allow the BID company or board to decide what it required in the way of a budget over a period and then to decide whether it wished to seek an apportionment of the cost between property owners on the one side and property occupiers on the other. It should not be required to do that. In my view, it should be equally permissive, with separate ballots to be held of owners and occupiers. Dr. Julie Grail has given evidence, to which I shall refer, from Scotland to demonstrate why flexibility is probably a good thing, but if there is a decision to apportion the cost between the two, the proposition will be put to both the owners and the occupiers that they should meet a set percentage of the agreed budget, which will be set in advance. Both parties would know at the outset what share of the total budget they would meet and what the financial implications would be.

Brian Binley: The right hon. Gentleman is most kind and I am very grateful to him for giving way. Can I get it clear in my mind? We have a BID in operation. If we introduce a supplementary rate, is the right hon. Gentleman suggesting that the levying authority would be able to divide the element of supplementary rate between the owners and the occupiers, not exceeding the total of 2 per cent., or is he saying that we could levy even more money by including the owners of the property, while the occupiers would still have to pay both the BID levy and the supplementary rate levy?

Nick Raynsford: I must apologise to the hon. Gentleman. This is complex territory and I am probably not explaining it as well as I should. The apportionment is purely in relation to the contributions to the BID. The business rate supplementthe main purpose of the Billwould apply only to occupiers. There is no provision for the business rate supplement to apply to owners. My new clause would not change that. It applies only, as I thought I had stressed, to those areas where there are existing BIDs, in which it would be open to the BID board to work with the levying authority. I would hope that the two would work closely together; one of the lessons of BIDs is that close co-operation is crucial to their success. If the board were to propose an apportionment between the element of the BID that would be paid by the occupier and the element that would be paid by the owner, it would be free to do so.
	I said that I was in favour of flexibility; let me explain why. There will be some BID areas where the renewal ballot is perhaps not due for three, four or more years. The New West End Company only just had a successful renewal ballot at the end of last year. Therefore, there will be a period of almost five years before it is time for another ballot. If the new clause were accepted, there would be an option to set an owners levy within an area where there is an existing BIDthe New West End Company is oneand where the business rate supplement is coming in. It might be decided that it was sensible to introduce an owners levy as well as the existing BID. It is right that there should be the flexibility to do that rather than saying that the board has to wait until the end of the current BID period, when there would then be the relevant apportionment and a proposal. It is purely a practical measure to allow a degree of flexibility.
	The other point was whether the occupiers would end up paying more because the owners tried to offload the extra costs that they were bearing through a rent review. In the experience of most BID areas, probably only a very small element of the total costs would be part of a rent review, particularly becauseas I hope I have now explainedthe costs of the BID are being apportioned between owners and occupiers. It would be difficult for the owners to make a case to seek to offload their contribution on to the occupiers.
	I would not be tabling the new clause if it had not received substantial support from property owners and occupiers, who believe that it will strengthen the BID's offer and make it more likely that BIDs will succeed. I am not proposing to impose something. I am making a proposal that commands the remarkable support of a large proportion of those involved, either as owners or as occupiers of retail premises in some of the country's most significant shopping areas.

John Redwood: How much extra money does the right hon. Gentleman think would come in as a result of the change?

Nick Raynsford: I tabled the new clause to provide an offset for property occupiers who currently have a liability to pay a BID levy and will also be affected by business rate supplement. The right hon. Gentleman will have heard me say clearly that I would leave it to the BID board to determine what the basis of the levy on owners should be and the amount it would seek to collect. I would expect it to be used to offset the contribution of occupiers; in other words, the extra contribution from owners would offset the liability of the occupiers, which would reduce their contribution and make it less burdensome to meet the additional demand of the business rate supplement. I cannot give an absolute guarantee on that because it would depend on individual circumstances. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will recognise that that is necessary if we are to leave the control of these operations at a local level, with the board covering the businesses and the levying authority.

Daniel Rogerson: On this aspect of the new clause, am I right in understanding that where there is an existing BID, there would be the possibility of this new provision being brought into effect, but that that would also automatically be discussed in any area where a BID proposal is currently still being worked on? That would provide a reassurance to businesses prior to a ballot in any new BID areas, as well as to businesses in an existing BID.

Nick Raynsford: I have already made it clear that this provision will apply only in areas where there is an existing BID, and where business rate supplement is proposed. Those are the two areas that are covered. A new BID would not be covered, and the new clause may need to be improved to address that requirement, because there would be a logic in doing so. However, it also remains the case that the provision would not apply even in areas where there are BIDs unless there is a business rate supplement.

Lee Scott: I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman can provide clarification on the following point. In my neighbouring constituency, with which I have a connection through the main town centre of Ilford, a BID is being voted on at present. Would that also be included, or would it be counted as a new BID?

Nick Raynsford: Even assuming that this new clause is accepted, the Bill still has to pass through Parliament. I do not know the precise timetable for the Ilford BID ballot, but if it is taking place soon, there will be an existing BID within Ilford when the Bill is passed. Therefore, it will be open to the BID, if it is successful, to decide to use this power, if it is available. That would be entirely permissive, however; the BID would not be required to use it.
	Other benefits arise from focusing on areas where there are existing BIDs, which is why the new clause is framed in this way. On the whole, there is a good understanding of property ownership in such areas, because the BID itself has, as a matter of course, had to bring together the various business intereststhe occupiers, because they are contributing, and the owners, because, in many cases, a voluntary contribution is being sought from the BID and it is necessary to know and understand who those owners are. I am assured by British BIDs as well as the New West End Company that they do not think that in these circumstances it will be difficult, expensive or time consuming to compile a register of ownership in such areas. That was the primary obstacle to the introduction of an owners levy at the outset.
	The second safeguard, which is absolutely crucial, is a minimum threshold contribution. If this were to apply across the board to all businesses, I could foresee certain difficulties, such as having to deal with very small pockets of land that might be held in ownership that it would be difficult to identify. However, it is a characteristic of most BIDs that contributions come from significant businesses within an area, and most small businesses in most BID areas are exempt. Therefore, the range of business ownerships that have to be identified will be less, and the risk of serious problems arising will also be less. I therefore believe that this is a practical measure that addresses the problem, and that does so without creating the kind of difficulties that deterred us from adopting an owner register and owner levy when BIDs were first introduced.

Brian Binley: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for taking great steps to ensure we understand what is a rather complicated area. Let us consider a situation in which a business rate supplement is in being and a new BID is then mooted; does the right hon. Gentleman fear that the supplementary rate could make it much more difficult for a new BID to be introduced? Let me say to him at this point that I am a fan of BIDs, as I have said both on previous occasions and in a commission I had the privilege to head-up for my party. Does he fear the concept of BIDs becoming less attractive because of this double whammy of costs, albeit split between property owners and property occupiers?

Nick Raynsford: By definition, yes, because, as I have said, I think that there is the possibility of existing BIDs failing to get support in renewal ballots because of the imposition of BRS. It is precisely because of that that I believe it is right to address the long-standing problem of property owners not having had any liability to contribute towards BIDs. I believe that this proposal addresses that problem in a practical way, and that it will make it possible for people to see the case for continuing to support BIDs, albeit the occupiers will be contributing less because the owners will be contributing more as well as meeting the business rate supplement. I believe that, for all these reasons, there are very strong arguments in favour of the approach I advocate.
	I have also been struck by the amount of support I have had from a very wide range of organisations. There is strong business backing for the introduction of a property owners levy. The British Property Federation has been closely involved in the preparation of the new clause, and it made clear the degree of both its support and business support for this approach at the meeting that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government arranged a week ago. It is not every day that business welcomes the introduction of a financial levy, and the fact that business and owners' representatives were saying they welcomed this and thought it was the right way forward for BIDs is doubly telling.
	We have also had a letter of strong support from the Mayor of London. It was sent to my right hon. Friend, and I would like to quote from it:
	Further to the Committee Stage debate on property owner involvement in Business Improvement Districts (BIDs) I am writing to express my full support for this measure.
	Specifically I support proposals by the British Property Federation 'to amend the Local Government Act 2003 to allow a BID, where it wanted to, to make the BID levy mandatory for both owners and occupiers, and giving property-owners full rights of BID membership. Similar to occupiers, property owners would only be faced with a levy if a majority by number and rateable value had voted in favour of it.'
	The British Property Federation, British BIDs, London BIDs, London First and other organisations have long argued that BIDs should have the power to decide whether or not to include property owners in BIDs. Currently, they are exempt from paying any BID levy. Many property owners have contributed voluntarily to BIDs. Other property owners benefit from the activities of BIDs but do not contribute to them. The Bill represents an opportunity to rectify this imbalance. Also this measure would be a helpful way of ameliorating the impact of the BRS on BIDs by spreading the levy across a wider pool of payers.
	That is what the Mayor of London wrote, and I wholeheartedly agree with his views and hope his letter will lead a number of Members of the same party as him to believe that this is a splendid measure.
	While reading the letter, I was very impressed by the Mayor's grasp of the complexities of the issue, becauseas hon. Members will understand from my presentation, which has gone on for too long alreadythis is complex territory. On reflection, I came to the conclusion that the Mayor's letter probably owed quite a lot to the input of his chief of staff, the former leader of Westminster city council, who is not only an expert on local government, but was the leader of the council which has, I think, the largest number of BIDs of any authority in the country. Therefore, he is fairly expert in this matter.

Angela Watkinson: I have been following the right hon. Gentleman's remarks to the best of my ability. When business owners are consulted about a new BID proposal, do they have to give a unanimously positive response, or does there need to be a positive response from a certain proportion of those approached? What does majority mean, if there is to be a majority vote? If the proportions are 49 per cent. to 51 per cent. will the scheme go ahead?

Nick Raynsford: The procedure is the same as the one that applies to the property occupiers ballot. There has to be a numerical majority among the occupiers in the areas who will be liable to the levy and there has to be a majority according to the rateable value, too. It is a double key ballot that requires a majority on both counts before the levy can be imposed. That has worked extremely well with BIDs and it is strongly recommended by the business interests that are supporting the new clause as a similar safeguard for property owners to that which exists for property occupiers.
	I hope that the cross-party endorsement of new clause 2, which is clear from the Mayor of London's support for it, will be reaffirmed this afternoon. It is a practical measure that addresses the short-term challenge of the potential adverse impact of the BRS on BIDs and the longer-term challenge of ensuring an equitable and sustainable funding base for BIDs. I have been greatly heartened by the degree of support that new clause 2 has attracted from all quarters, and I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister, if he is unable to accept it here and now, will be able to give us assurances that the Government will be prepared to amend the Bill in the other place to give effect to the intentions of the clause.
	I accept entirely that details are needed about how the ballot and the dual-key safeguards will apply in practice. Complex issues will need to be clarified before the property owner levy can be introduced. We touched on several of those issues in the meeting that my right hon. Friend the Minister set up last week with the interested parties from BIDs and the British Property Federation. Dr. Julie Grail of British BIDs has prepared a very helpful paper on the subject. I accept her judgment that none of the details is a show-stopper and I feel confident that they can be dealt with in regulations to avoid any delay in incorporating the principle of a permissive property owner levy in the Bill.
	We also have the experience of Scotland, where a property owner levy has been implemented as an option as part of the BIDs scheme. As British BIDs has pointed out, only two of the Scottish BIDs have chosen to apportion the levy between owners and occupiers, which reinforces the case for allowing the greatest flexibility in how the scheme is implemented area by area.
	In conclusion, I commend new clause 2 to the House as a pragmatic response to a real challenge and as a measure that has secured widespread support from those concerned with improving the effective operation of BIDs and the longer-term objective of enhancing the economic competitiveness of our towns and cities.

Bob Neill: I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford) both for having reintroduced his clause in a slightly different form from the one that we saw in Committee and for having returned to the issue, which is very serious and warrants significant consideration. Like hon. Members from all parties, I am grateful for the care that he has taken to outline the issue. It is necessarily complex and somewhat technical and, ironically, it is a good demonstration of how regrettable it is that we are constrained by the programme motion that was passed earlier. This one element of the Bill will take up a considerable part of Report, but that is necessary so we can get our heads around the detail.
	Let us step back to the objective behind the new clause, on which I think I am in agreement with the right hon. Gentleman. This issue was flagged up to the Government at an early stage and they need to address it: how will we deal with the potential interaction of BIDs and the BRS in a way that does not place an undue burden on businesses? Some of us would perhaps not start from this point, but if we have that interaction we need at the very least to try to ameliorate the situation to the greatest possible degree. That is the issue that I want to see addressed.
	If the right hon. Gentleman's formulation can be taken forward following work and tweaking, I hope that the Government will consider it sympathetically. I take on board the comments made by the Mayor of London. There is a lot more detail that we probably need to explore, and that might need to be done elsewhere, but I hope that the Government will respond seriously to the proposal. The assurance that my right hon. and hon. Friends and I want is that there should ultimately be no perverse consequence of such a provision, either through the total revenue take being increased through the back door or through some failure to pass on in practice, regardless of any good intentions, the offset of the owner levy to ameliorate and reduce the bid that comes down to the occupiers. If those concerns can be met, the proposal warrants consideration.

John Redwood: Is that not the danger? In this climate, when there will be very little private finance for such schemes, will it not be very tempting for the BID organisations to say, We can find another bunch of people and companies that have to pay too and to simply ask for more money from the levy because they will get less money from elsewhere?

Bob Neill: That is precisely the risk. It concerns me with regard not only to the new clause but to the Bill in general. Local authorities as well the promoting bodies of BIDs will be tempted always to go down that route. It might be possible, with good will and work from all parties, for a solution to be found. I get the impression that the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich will not press his proposal to a vote today, but I hope that what I have said is of some help in concentrating minds on finding a way forward.

Lee Scott: Does my hon. Friend share my concern that where BID schemes are being voted on an element of fear might be put into businesseseven though it might not be accurateand that that might force them to vote the opposite way to how we might want them to vote? Like my hon. Friend, I am a great supporter of BIDs.

Bob Neill: My hon. Friend highlights one of the conundrums that the Government have created in their handling of this matter. I am prepared to learn from experience and see the advantage of BIDs. Given that we have a ballot for BIDs but do not have a guaranteed ballot for the BRS, the accumulation of the BRS plus BIDs plus other costs will ratchet up a fear factor and will also cause businesses to wonder where they can take some steps to cut costs, and because they cannot vote against the BRS they will vote against the BID. That will be a shame, because the BID will often be a desirable and worthwhile project. I think that the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich takes that point on board and we are all looking for a means to prevent that from happening. Perhaps it is work in progress at the moment, but that is why I have made sympathetic noises without committing to the detail. Avoiding the perverse incentive mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) and others will be crucial in seeing that the provision delivers the results that are wanted in practice.
	I have shown where I am coming from and I shall be interested to see how the Minister responds, because the issue needs to be dealt with. We had considered other alternatives at other points in the Bill, such as automatic offsets. I am not seeking to return to those alternatives at this stage, but the conundrum of the interaction has to be resolved and the Bill as drafted does not achieve that.

Daniel Rogerson: I echo the comments made by the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) in saying that the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford), in tabling his new clause, has sought within the constraints of the Bill to revisit the BID system that he played a great role in introducing. As other hon. Members have said, it has proved to be a beneficial process and I am sure that it will continue to be so.
	As was said at the beginning of the debate, there has been a conflict in the minds of business people who have been asked to consider whether they should support an ongoing BID in their area or whether they should be part of putting together a new BID when there is the prospectas there is in Londonof a supplementary business rate being levied, too. It has been clear to me from discussions that I have had with representative business organisations that the sort of approach that the right hon. Gentleman wants to take and that he is encouraging the Government to adopt represents a way forward. The British Property Federation, the representative organisation of the people whom right hon. and hon. Members are seeking to protectthat is, property ownershas been keen to point out that it supports this way forward. That reassures me, as I am sure it does other Members.
	Inevitably, because we are not talking about legislation to revisit BIDs and widen their scope, the new clause is limited in scope. Therefore, I return to what I said in my earlier intervention on the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich: the proposal does not allow us to address the formation of new bids. As a result, there is a disincentive for a BID to be successful in the ballot and that would be unfortunate for the areas involved if they are also facing the prospect of a BRS.
	When the Minister responds, I hope that he will explore these matters in more detail. Although my party supports the concept of a supplementary business rate where a ballot has been held to determine local approvalan issue to which I hope to return in respect of a later set of amendmentswe would regret anything that called into question the benefits of a positive BID process, which will help a local area's residents generally, as well as its visitors, business community and property owners.
	For those reasons, my party supports what the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich is trying to do. We very much appreciate the lengths to which he has gone to explore the matter fully, and to consult widely before our debate this afternoon. I congratulate him on his contribution and hope that, regardless of whether this new clause is accepted, we will hear about a way forward that will satisfy the concerns that have been raised.

John Redwood: I, too, praise the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich for the way in which he spoke to his proposal. He has drawn the House's attention to a very important matter, and if some Ministers spoke to their amendments in similar detail and with similar concern for the House, we would have much better informed debates generally, and perhaps better legislation.  [ Interruption. ] I am not referring to the Minister dealing with the debate today, but if he feels that my remark applies to him, I hope that he will demonstrate shortly that it need not do so. He certainly made no sensible contribution to the earlier debate on the allocate of time, but we live in hope that he might make a sensible response to the points that we are making about the Bill, as I believe he did in Committee.
	I think that the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich is trying to paper over some cracks with this proposal. As a Minister, he was the architect and sponsor of the BIDs scheme, which has met with quite a lot of approval in the places that it has affected. It has been used in areas with councils of different political persuasions, often to good effect. However, he sees the danger that the supplementary levy will hit exactly the same people who are financing the BIDs scheme, at a time when the world has changed dramatically.
	I am afraid that the Minister has to deal with the very important point that all these schemesthe BIDs idea, the supplementary levy and some of the other ideas that the Government have floated and not proceeded withrested on the heroic assumptions that rents and property values would go up and that most properties would find tenants very easily. The idea was to try to capture, for the public sector and the common weal, some of the enhanced value that the private sector seems to create so easily. The aim, through the variation of levies and betterment charges and so on, was that some of the gain could be shared, as well as to provide public infrastructure and support to the glamorous private sector developments that were going ahead.
	This is not the place to debate all that again. Indeed, I do not think that we can have that sort of debate any more anyway, because that is no longer what the real world is like. In today's real world, there will be fewer tenants and more void properties. Rentals are falling and could fall a lot further, while commercial property values have fallen some 30 per cent. from their peak and many experts feel that they will fall further. That is not a good background for doubling charges, and the proposed scheme looks like one that might have been designed by a firm called Clobber and Clobber. That is, an area is clobbered first of all with a BID, and then again with the supplementary levy.

Mark Field: My right hon. Friend is making his case very powerfully, and he is right to say that there was a sense that things would go from good to even better over the years ahead. However, does he agree that there is at least some mileage in the notion of value capture? Although I think that it is right for Opposition Members to stand up for our much-beleaguered business sector just now, does he accept that there is a risk that we are failing to put in place something that could be of use in the upturn? Provided that there are the safeguards that we have discussed, especially in relation to balloting, might not an idea such as the business rate supplement be the right way to find elements of the funding that will be needed as the economy moves out of recession, not least because of the value capture to which he and I have referred? I must add that I probably share his fears that the recession and downturn are likely to be part of the economic tableau before us for quite some time to come.

John Redwood: I think that my hon. Friend and I can agree that the current situation is bad and will get worse, and that this therefore is not the time to introduce an extra levy.
	We are not at present debating the extra levy that is the subject of the Bill. Rather, we are debating a proposal from the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich that is designed to try to abate the consequences of that levy. He has rightly seen that introducing the levy in the same area as a BID would amount to a double whammy, or something from Clobber and Clobber, as I have just described it. He has rightly asked himself, How do I ameliorate that? He has produced a positive suggestion, but within a framework in which the Government wish to take the risk of upping the tax burden in these difficult areas at a time when the business community is flat on its back.
	The right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich is asking whether it is possible to take some of the burden off tenants and put it on to the property owners. His suggestion has the agreement of most property owners, although quite a lot of important ones do not necessarily support it. In his ideal world, the tenants would have an abated total cost. They would still have a much bigger total cost, because they would have to pay the supplement imposed by the Bill as well as the BID, but there would be an abatement.
	Not only did I think that the right hon. Gentleman spoke well to his new clause, but I gave him a fair hearing because he was trying to move in the right direction. Before I could possibly support the proposal, however, I would need to be satisfied that there would not be leakage in the way that my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst suggested. My understanding is that a lot of local authorities, as soon as they see another group of people liable to pay a levy, will not decide that that allows them to cut the levy paid by someone else. Instead, they will think, Whoopee! We can have a bigger levy! We have broadened the tax base and so we can have a bigger scheme.
	Alternatively, authorities re-entering BID projects that are already up and running might understandably say, We started this BID in the extremely favourable property circumstances of 2006 and 2007, when we though that the private sector would contribute a particular amount. However, we now discover that the private sector banks have been largely nationalised and cannot make the money available, and that the private sector players no longer have the profits to do so. As a result, we have to make good the shortfallthe amount that the private sector can no longer provideout of public moneys. What a good idea the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich has given us. He has provided us with the answer, and we have another bunch of people to put a levy on.

Daniel Rogerson: The right hon. Gentleman is setting out what is clearly a cautionary principle, and it is right and proper that we acknowledge it. However, at the risk of starting another debate about his view of how local government operatesas opposed to the one expressed by other hon. Members, especially the hon. Member for Halton (Derek Twigg)I venture to suggest that the BID process is slightly different. The organisations operating the BID, which would therefore decide how an offset would work, include bodies apart from just the local authority. As the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford) said, the BID would be operated by a wider group. That is certainly some reassurance to me, and I hope that the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) agrees.

John Redwood: I accept that, and there will be some examples of good BID organisations that would not go down the route that I am setting out. However, the hon. Gentleman will accept that the local authority often starts with an important role in a BID organisation, or comes to play such a role, because it has the necessary public funding and staff. Local authorities in that situation are in some ways the continuity people. When the private sector is in a state of financial haemorrhage and collapse, it loses time, confidence, money and power in the BID organisations. Proportionally, the power and confidence of the public sector rises, and that is what is happening very visibly at the moment.

Nick Raynsford: When the BIDs were introduced, some people in the business community expressed the fear that local authorities would simply substitute business contributions for their expenditure. I am pleased to say that actual practice on the ground has shown the business community to be pretty canny, on the whole. Its members vote in favour of BIDs only when they have been reassured by the local authority that it will continue and in some cases enhance its contributions to those areas. I would expect there to be a similar positive and constructive dialogue between the two parties in the context of the owners levy that I am proposing.

John Redwood: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman is right; he has more experience of BIDs than I do. There are many examples of such good practice, but I think that he would concede that what I am saying is possible. I am not saying that it would be a typical experience; I am sure that there will still be many good BIDs and that the business communities will stay fully engaged in many places, but he should not underestimate how much stuffing is being knocked out of the business community by the day-to-day pressures on cash flow, the collapse of turnover and the difficulty in getting access to banking facilities. That is sometimes going to make even the best of intentions among the business community difficult to carry through. Businesses simply will not have the time to do these things, let alone the cash, or the intellectual self-confidence, given the recent very destructive few months, which have hit them badly.
	Like my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, who is leading for us on this issue, I am not ill-disposed to what the right hon. Gentleman is trying to do. If I felt that the words could mirror exactly what he wished to achieve, and if there were a cap on the ability to take extra money out of the community, I would be much more in favour of the proposal. I would like to hear the Minister's response, to see whether it might be possible to find a way forward. I hope that he will equally understand my concernalongside those of the right hon. Gentlemanthat at this juncture, above all, the main aim of the House should be not to take more money off the business community.

Lee Scott: I want to elaborate a little on what I said in an earlier intervention, and I hope that the Minister will be able to respond to this point. Let us take Ilford as a prime example in relation to these measures. A BID scheme has been proposed, and Crossrail will also be coming to, and bringing great benefit to, Ilford. I fully support both projects, but some members of the community might not understand these proposals. They were eloquently explained by the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford), but they would have to be explained to people to ensure that no one voted against the BID scheme purely because they were worried about the business rate supplement for Crossrail, when both projects are so badly needed, especially at times such as these, to encourage people into the area, bringing more money with them and creating more jobs. Both schemes are therefore vital, and I hope that the Minister will be able to put my fears to rest.

John Healey: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford) for tabling this new clause. I pay tribute to him for the way in which he has prepared his case and pursued it, and not least for the way in which he has marshalled an impressively wide range of support for his proposal. It was a reminder to us all of why he is held in such high regard as one of my predecessors.
	The House has already acknowledged, today and in Committee, my right hon. Friend's essential role in introducing the legislation that enabled business improvement districts to be established. Despite the reservations of some Opposition Members at that time, we have now had several years' experience of BIDs. There are more than 70 up and running in different parts of the country and I am happy to say that there is now all-party support for them, both here and in local government. The last thing we want to do is to undermine BIDs through the introduction of the BRS. The Bill enables authorities introducing a BRS to offset a BID liability against the BRS. This approach was based on our overall approach to the BRS. BRS is a new discretionary power for authorities to use, and it is consistent to allow the authorities to decide whether to use an automatic offset for BID payments, according to the needs of their area.
	We have had a debate about automatic offsets in the earlier stages of the Bill, and I hope that we have now settled that matter. Even the chief executive of British BIDs, Dr. Julie Grail, made it clear that she was not necessarily advocating them. In our debates about offsetting, and in our general debates about the value of BIDs, it has become clear that offsetting might not be the only solution. It is also clear that there is some merit in involving property owners in business improvement districts on more than a voluntary basis. That case has been made again, in great detail, by my right hon. Friend this afternoon, and it is backed not only by BIDs but by leading organisations representing property owners, including the British Property Federation. It is also supported by the operation of exactly this arrangement in two areas of Scotland, where property owners are involved in BIDs in this way.
	If we are to change the present arrangementsI want to make it clear that I am willing to do soit is essential that we get these measures right. I am grateful for the encouragement by the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) to look sympathetically at this approach, and I am grateful to the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Dan Rogerson) for his support for the approach that my right hon. Friend is taking and for what he is trying to achieve.
	We have more work to do in ensuring that that measure would be optional for business improvement districts. We also need to do more work on determining how the arrangements for property owners would work alongside those for occupiers, and on putting in place a satisfactory mechanism for collecting BID levies from the owners of occupied properties. I would like to get this detailed work done, in close consultation with my right hon. Friend and with the organisations that are supporting him. If we can do this, as I aim to do, I will then look forward to having the support of both the Opposition parties for this approach, and for any amendments that we might table in another place.
	I hope that, on that basis, my right hon. Friend will feel that I have accepted his case and captured the spirit of it. I am determined to do the necessary work on the detail, and I hope that he will feel able to withdraw his new clause this afternoon.

Nick Raynsford: I am extremely grateful to my right hon. Friend for that most encouraging response. I fully understand the need for further work to be done, and I hope that, as a result of that work, some of the searches for reassurance that we have heard from Opposition Members will be satisfied. I genuinely believe that this proposal holds out the prospect of not only safeguarding the survival of BIDs when BRS comes in, but of providing a more sustainable basis for the future of BIDs in the long term. Across the whole House, we recognise that the BIDs initiative has been successful in helping to enhance our towns and cities.
	I am extremely grateful to my right hon. Friend the Minister, and I look forward to working with him. I shall make myself available to do so whenever necessary. I know that the many bodies outside the House that have supported the approach set out in new clause 2 will also want to play their role in helping him to define a practical way of moving forward. I very much hope that he will be able to table an amendment in another place; I would see that as an important step forward. Given the assurance that I have received from him, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
	 Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 2
	  
	Levying authorities

Bob Neill: I beg to move amendment 5, page 1, line 17, leave out paragraphs (b) to (d).

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment 3, page 1, line 20, after 'Wales', insert ', and
	(e) the National Assembly for Wales.'.
	Amendment 6, page 2, line 1, leave out subsections (2) and (3).
	Amendment 7, in clause 3, page 2, line 44, leave out paragraph (b).
	Amendment 8, in clause 5, page 3, line 29, leave out subsection (2).
	Amendment 9, in clause 5, page 3, line 36 [Clause 5], leave out subsection (4).
	Amendment 10, in clause 28, page 17, line 42, leave out subsection (3).
	Amendment 11, in clause 29, page 18, line 21, leave out paragraph (b).
	Amendment 12, in clause 29, page 18, line 44, leave out paragraph (b).
	Amendment 13, in clause 30, page 19, line 6, leave out paragraph (b).
	Amendment 14, in schedule 2, page 23, line 26, leave out subparagraph (3).

Bob Neill: We return now to the issue that has been fairly central to some of the earlier discussion of the Billits extent. My amendment replicates one that gave rise to a major debate in Committee. We contend that in the current circumstances the introduction of a nationwide power to levy what is calculated, on any view, to be the better part of a 600 million potential tax burden on businesses is inappropriate and likely to be damaging to the overall interests of the economy. This is not to do with the overall intellectual arguments for or against business rate supplements; the fact is that often in politics practical timing is a key consideration. For reasons that were well rehearsed on Second Reading and in Committee, we believe that there is a real risk that local authorities will feel pressured to resort to this as a means of raising funding right across the board.
	An exception to that relates to the Crossrail project in London. The amendment would limit the scope of the Bill to Londonto the Greater London Authority, the top-tier authority, which it is proposed, together with its functional bodies, will carry out the Crossrail project. The amendment would limit the scope to Crossrail because the Mayor of London, who was prayed in aid in the debate on an earlier group of amendments, has made it clear that although he wishes to be given the power to levy a supplementary business rate in relation to Crossrail, he does not intend to use it other than for Crossrail, purely on the basis of saying, Let's get Crossrail going.
	As a London Member of Parliament, I agree with the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford) about the importance of Crossrail to the London economy; I am conscious that it will have real and considerable benefits, and I am anxious to ensure that we do not impede its progress. However, there are differences between the Crossrail project and a nationwide roll-out of the scheme.

Phyllis Starkey: I would be grateful if the hon. Gentleman could clarify whether his argument rests on a view that any project in London is bound to be more important than a project elsewhere; whether he trusts the Greater London Authority more than local authorities elsewhere; or whether he is merely arguing in this way because the Mayor of London happens to be a Conservative and it would be a bit embarrassing if Conservative Front Benchers went against his express wishes.

Bob Neill: The answer is, in fact, none of those things, as the hon. Lady might have discerned. Crossrail is a project where the funding package was agreed before the delivery of this Bill. There is a political consensus on Crossrail in London because the funding package, including the proposal to levy a supplementary business rate to fund an element of it, was announced back in October 2007 in advance of the last London mayoral elections. It was well debated and well aired in London, where there was a clear consensus of view that it was a desirable way ahead. All the principal candidates in London had stood on the platform of supporting Crossrail and the funding packagecertainly the candidates from all three major parties, and I think the Greens as well.
	First, then, the proposal was well established. Secondlylet us be practical about these thingsthe deal was done, and unpicking the funding package would put the project at risk, and I do not intend to do anything that would put it at risk. That is a world away from taking a specific done deal, as the Government have done through this Bill instead of enacting a simple Crossrail enabling or financing Bill to deal with that one project and using that as an opportunity to roll out a nationwide project by stealth. That raises the prospect of significant increases in the tax burden on authorities that have nothing to do with Crossrail and are in different circumstances, and where some of the other tests that should apply to ensure that there is sign-up do not as yet apply.

Nick Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman will be aware, because he has referred to this already, that the genesis of the business rate supplement was in the Lyons review. When Sir Michael Lyons considered this, he was well aware of Crossrail. He did not recommend that this should be a specific funding mechanism solely for Crossrail, he recommended but that a business rate supplement should be available throughout the country. Why is the hon. Gentleman departing from Sir Michael Lyons's recommendation?

Bob Neill: Because in the current circumstances it would be wrong to do so. I will adopt, if the right hon. Gentleman likes, a classically Keynesian argumentwhen the facts change, I change my opinion; that was the view of John Maynard Keynes. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) set out the facts very eloquently. It is not realistic, in the current economic climate, to place further tax burdens on businesses save in the most exceptional circumstances. I am prepared to regard Crossrail as an exceptional circumstance because of its national impact and the fact that there has been very significant debate beforehand. That does not apply elsewhere. For the reasons that have been well set out by my right hon. and hon. Friends, the inevitable cost pressures placed on local authorities in the current climate mean that this will be used as an additional form of revenue-raising regardless of the economic needs, and nobody desires that. That is why virtually all the business organisations have real concerns at the roll-out of a nationwide project as opposed to Crossrail.
	The simple fact is that the world has moved on since it was thought that one could move fairly readily into the type of scheme that we are talking about. Under certain, different circumstances, and if carefully rehearsed, the scheme might be deliverable, but at the moment, if we embarked on a broad roll-out, it would, in our judgment, send exactly the wrong signals for business confidence. In the case of Crossrail, the issues are well rehearsed, and have been dealt with well.

Mark Field: I can see precisely what my hon. Friend is trying to achieve, and he is absolutely right about the cross-party commitment to Crossrail. Notwithstanding the fact that he has had reassurances from the Mayor of London that the power would not be used for any project other than Crossrail, is there not some concern on our side that central Government may decide, on the basis that London is included in the Bill and everywhere else is not, that no big infrastructure projects whatever will be funded by central Government? Might there not be an expectation that the funding would have to come from those powers? Perhaps, therefore, we ought to be even more specific about the fact that the powers relate to one specific project, rather than to one geographical area.

Bob Neill: That point may be taken up elsewhere. My hon. Friend highlights an issue that underlines the fact that right, across the piece and in a number of areas, there has been a shifting of burdens from central Government to local government in one form or another. There may sometimes be arguments for that, but let us be honest about it. What we are really seeing is the potential for economic development moneys to be moved away from the central Exchequer to local residents and businesses.
	The validity of my hon. Friend's point is reinforced by an interesting juxtaposition, which is perhaps wholly coincidental, although I do not think so. The Bill proposes giving local authorities right across the country the power to raise revenue from business for economic development purposes, and at the same time there has been a massive cut to the funding made available by central Government for the local authority business growth incentive scheme, which has been absolutely emasculated. It is interesting that the Treasury took away that money. The inevitable unwritten message was: Sorry, local authorities; if you want those schemes to go ahead, you'll have to raise the money from your businesses, rather than getting it from us. That is ultimately a stealth tax, yet again.

Lee Scott: Does my hon. Friend remember that in 2004, the then Mayor of London, Mr. Livingstone, addressed a meeting in the City, at which he clearly said, way before any Business Rate Supplements Bill had even been thought of, that a supplement would need to be put on business rates for Crossrail, should it be approvedit had not, at that time, been approvedand that it would be for Crossrail, and nothing else? Does my hon. Friend not agree that that only goes to show that the issue had nothing to do with party politics? The view was taken across the board.

Bob Neill: My hon. Friend is right. There were moments when the previous Mayor of London had flashes of insight with which I agreed. He genuinely attempted to hold his hand out to the business community. He was right to say that Crossrail was a one-off; it is a one-off, because of its scale and complexity, the sums that have to be raised, and its implications. I do not have any problem with saying that it should be treated in that way.
	I know that Labour Members will sayI can see them working up to it alreadythat the measure somehow deprives other parts of the country of an opportunity. I have to say that if I were running a small or medium-sized business in another part of the country, I would not, in the current circumstances, welcome the opportunity to have more taxation placed on me through the imposition of a levy. Now, when businesses are going broke, is not the time to do that.

Phyllis Starkey: I am seriously disturbed by the thread, which has run through almost every contribution from Conservative Members, of disdain for local government and local democracy. The Bill is not imposing burdens; it is giving local authorities a power that they can use if they deem it necessary. I wonder how the hon. Gentleman reconciles his disdain for local government and the way in which it might use the power in the Bill with his party's avowed commitment to greater localism. There is a total contradiction between the two positions.

Bob Neill: After 24 years' service in one form of local authority or another, I will not take any lectures from the hon. Lady about commitment to local government. We have been demonstrating that and putting our money and our mouths where our principles are, right along the line. I will not take any mealy-mouthed comments from her on that subject.
	We believe in genuine empowerment. The hon. Lady ought to abolish the cap, for example, if she wants to give localism to local government. She could abolish the comprehensive area assessment, comprehensive performance assessment regime if she wants to give localism to local government. We will not take any lectures on localism from any Members on the Government Benches.
	The measure has a ratchet effect. It gives a power to impose tax, but that is coupled with a reduction in central Government funding. It is a nudge, nudge, wink, wink suggestion whereby Government are saying to local government, We can't provide funding any more because, thanks to the current Prime Minister, the national coffers are empty. You instead impose the cost of these desirable projects on to your businesses and your residents. That is what it is about, and that is why Labour Members protest so muchthey know that they have been found out.

Brian Binley: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government clearly trust local government so much that they had to put a cap on the local rates applied in every district? They do not trust local government. That is the problem, and that is the point that my hon. Friend is making.

Bob Neill: My hon. Friend is right, as ever. I note his long service in local government and the practical job that he did as portfolio-holder for finance in his county council, when he attempted to deliver value for money for people in Northamptonshire. We do not just trust local government; we have been practitioners of local government for much of our careers, so we speak with practical authority.

Nick Raynsford: rose

Bob Neill: I give way to the right hon. Gentleman, whose views on the topic I respect.

Nick Raynsford: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. May I take him back to the last debate on my proposed new clause 2, in which he expressed a certain level of support but argued that there had to be safeguards and, as I recall it, argued for a cap on the use of that power? Will he now reconcile that with what he has just said?

Bob Neill: Very easily. I did not use the word cap. I said that what was required was a guarantee that the offset would be translated in practice. That is a very different concept, as the right hon. Gentleman knows.

Nick Raynsford: Good try!

Bob Neill: It was a good try by the right hon. Gentleman, as well, but it did not quite come off. The simple fact is that those are two different concepts.
	The Government have chosen to use a settled agreement in relation to one part of the country to impose burdens which, in the current financial climatethat point must be emphasisedhave the potential to do real damage, rather than doing good. The Government did not necessarily mean that to happen, but it is a consequence of the financial mess that the Government are in nationally that they seek to transfer those burdens, and it would be a classic example of the law of unintended consequences that arises with so much legislation.
	We want Crossrail to proceed. The best means to do that would have been to separate that off so that we could have had a separate debate on a more timely and relaxed basis about the appropriateness of rolling out BRS as a concept elsewhere in the country. That would have given us more time to consider the serious issues that the right hon. Gentleman raised, to which I hope we will still return. Nothing that has happened since has changed my view. That approach would have enabled Crossrail to proceed on a discrete and timely basis. I hope that we will take the amendment forward.

Derek Twigg: I hugely enjoyed the speech made by the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) as he tried to dance around the reason for his party's line on this issue. The Conservatives are finding it difficult to keep a straight face. As we all know, this is about the fact that Boris Johnson is the Tory Mayor of London, that London is of vast importance to the Toriesit is also vastly important to us, of courseand that they do not want to risk a ballot in case it went wrong for them. I do not think that it would, but they do not want to take the risk, because they could be seen as the people who scuppered Crossrail, which I accept is of immense importance to London and to the nation as a whole.
	As the Minister who introduced Crossrail to the House, I was convinced of the argument for it. Obviously, it involves a significant amount of money. We would like more of that money up in the north, but I accept the reason for it. Like the hon. Gentleman, I am proud of my time as a councillor: I spent 16 years as one on my local authority. I appreciate that time and how it has influenced what I have done in Parliament. However, there is a clear bias here: it is okay for London, but not for the north. The argument seems to be that no scheme elsewhere in the countryI speak particularly from the point of view of the north-westcould qualify for such an exemption because it would not be on the scale of Crossrail. I find that argument bizarre.
	The other argument is that things are too far down the road for them to change, that all the work has been done before and that there should therefore not be a ballot. That cuts no ice with me. I do not understand the argument, because it clearly does not stack up. I come back to the point that the issue is that there is a Tory Mayor and that the scheme is so crucial that the Conservatives do not want any risk to it. They are therefore prepared to forgo the principle for which they have been arguing in Committee.
	 Three hours having elapsed since the commencement of proceedings on the programme motion, the debate was interrupted (Programme Order, this day).
	 The Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair (Standing Order No. 83E), That the amendment be made.

The Committee divided: Ayes 151, Noes 337.

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have been advised that hon. Members seek a Division on amendment 16.

Bob Neill: On amendments 15 and 16.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: There cannot be a Division on amendment 15 because it is in a different group and has not been moved.
	 Mr. Deputy Speaker then put forthwith the Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that time (Starting Order No. 83E).

Schedule 1
	  
	Information to be included in a prospectus for a BRS

Amendment proposed: 16, in page 22, line 16, at end insert
	'11A A description of the arrangements by which persons paying the BRS shall
	(a) be kept informed of what monies have been raised in pursuance of the BRS and how they have been expended, and
	(b) be represented upon the governing body of any organisation set up for the purposes of delivering the objectives of the BRS, or, if such organisation is not to be set up, how such persons are to be involved in the oversight of the delivery of such objectives.'. (Robert Neill.)
	 Question put , That the amendment be made.
	 The House divided: Ayes 200, Noes 279.

Question accordingly negatived.
	 Third Reading
	 Queen's consent signified.

John Healey: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
	Through each stage of the Bill, I have been impressed by, and grateful for, the serious level of scrutiny by all Members [Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. If Members are leaving, will they leave quietly and if they are not leaving, will they remain quietly?

John Healey: I welcome the degree of interest in the Third Reading expressed by those on the Government Benches. The level of serious scrutiny given to the Bill by Members from all parties is very welcome and is important to the House. We have benefited from the contributions of Members representing areas in the north and the south, Members representing both rural and urban constituencies and, indeed, those from London and from well beyond it.
	The Bill introduces a discretionary power for upper-level local authorities and, in London, the Greater London Authority to levy a limited supplement to the business rate to fund projects intended to promote economic development. We are not imposing a new business tax; we are introducing a new power to allow local authoritieswith serious safeguards for businessto raise some of the money that they need to boost their local economies. London is a leading example of that principle, and of the purpose of the new power. The business rate supplement in London will enable the Mayor to make good his commitment to an essential part of the funding package and allow Crossrail to go ahead. It will boost recovery in this part of the country and long-term growth in London.

Angela Watkinson: Will the Minister give way?

John Healey: I have only just begun my speech, but I will give way.

Angela Watkinson: That is generous of the Minister. I wanted to comment specifically on what he has just said about London. As he will know, the circumstances of the 32 London boroughs vary enormously. I am sure that outer- London borough councils such as Haveringwhich has received a central Government grant of 240 per head, compared with the average of 526 per headwill be tempted by the prospect of raising additional funds through the supplementary rate. The financial circumstances of such councils are very different from the circumstances of the councils in the west end of London to which the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford) referred earlier, with their prosperous businesses. The outer-London boroughs tend to contain very small businesses.

John Healey: The hon. Lady is right to say that the circumstances of the London boroughs vary, but she may have missed what I said immediately before I gave way to her. In London, the authority with the power to levy the business rate supplement will be the GLA, not the London borough councils. This will not be a choice, or a power, that is exercisable by the hon. Lady's own London borough council.
	I recognise that the present difficult economic period makes it much harder for the House to deal with legislation of this kind, but it should also be recognised that, during such difficult financial times, there is a risk that investment and major projects will be sidelined because of short-term concerns. There is also a risk that we will retreat to a centralism that removes local discretion and flexibility, particularly when tough choices need to be made. Furthermore, there is a risk that we will not establish the powers and policies relating to skills, regeneration and worklessness that will be necessary both to see us through the current downturn and, more important, to enable us to make the most of the upturn that will follow.

Derek Twigg: Opposition Members have made the important point that businesses are under considerable pressure and stress and strain at present. We all know that that is the case because of what we see in our constituencies and the figures that we see in the newspapers every day. Howeverthis is a point that I made repeatedly in Committeeare not local authorities an important part of the solution, and are they not also under great pressure in having to meet the extra demands being made of them? They are well aware of the pressures on business, and they are providing additional services to help people. It should be recognised that, because of the stresses and strains that they are experiencing, local authorities want to work in partnership with business rather than imposing extra burdens on it.

John Healey: My hon. Friend is right. He has made the same point at several stages during the Bill's progress. However, the Bill builds on a strong existing working relationship between local authorities and local businesses. My hon. Friend may recall that during one of the evidence sessions the director general of the British Chambers of Commerce, David Frost, told us that
	relationships between chambers of commerce and local authorities are extraordinarily strong.
	As my hon. Friend says, the Bill provides an opportunity for authorities and businesses to plan major projects for the future. Such projects can contribute to the economic recovery and, more important, to the future long-term growth of areas, but it will take time for them to develop. If we are to channel investment to support the upturn and the success that will follow it, we need to make preparations now. Difficult as it is for the House to deal with the Bill at this time, it is part of the foundation for that upturn.
	At each stage of the Bill, we have discussed the interaction between business rate supplements and business improvement districts, and at each stage concern has been expressed about business improvement districts. I am glad to say that our debates have confirmed that there is now strong cross-party support for BIDs, recognition of their success and a cross-party desire to protect them, where that is possible. We will no doubt return in the other place, following the debate on new clause 2 and the further work that I intend to ensure that we undertake, to the proposals of my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford).
	Concerns have been expressed on behalf of business and by business. I understand those, but the BRS will not come out of the blue for any business in any area. Local authorities will work with their local businesses to create projects and to examine whether the BRS may form part of the funding for those. As I have said, that will build on the strong relationships between local authorities and local businesses.
	We have been urged to go further in the Bill not just by those who gave evidence to the Public Bill Committee, but by the all-party Select Committee on Communities and Local Government and the all-party Conservative-led Local Government Association. They have argued for an increase in the threshold for the business rate supplement; for discretion for local authorities as to whether and when to have ballots on the introduction of a BRS; and for freedom to use BRS funding for purposes other than the economic development of the local area.

Paul Farrelly: We had a thorough discussion in Committee, but I still have a question about eligibility to vote on BRS schemes and whether the regulations might give local authorities flexibility to allow businesses that actually pay rates to participate, rather than those that are simply liable to pay a charge. On Second Reading, I used the example of a local Conservative councillor who operates three public houses in Newcastle-under-Lyme and who, over six years, has avoided paying business rates. He has not been disciplined in any way. The council does not respond to freedom of information requests but it has confirmed to me that, yet again, his businesses are substantially in arrears. Quite apart from the fact that an elected representative should set an example, my question is whether, in those circumstances, the regulations might give local authorities the discretion to say You will not be able to participate and therefore influence a BRS scheme if you do not pay your business rates.

John Healey: Action by any business tax payer deliberately to avoid payment of the business taxes that they are legally liable to pay is a disgrace. When they fail to pay the taxes they are legally liable to pay, others have to make good that shortfall. Therefore, by doing that, they are spreading the burden of taxation on to others who can and will pay, rather than those who can pay but will not.
	Concerns have been expressed among business about the financial implications of a BRS, especially at this time, and we have taken them seriously. We have built into the Bill a series of safeguards for business. For example, no business with a rateable value of less than 50,000 will be liable for a BRS. Any local authority that is looking to introduce a BRS can make that threshold higher and more generous still. There is also a requirement for statutory consultation with all affected business rate payers and ballots will be held if a BRS exceeds more than a third of the total cost of a project. Any authority that may levy a BRS also has the discretion to introduce a taper above the 50,000 threshold and to phase in a BRS over a number of years. In addition, if it thinks it appropriate, it has the discretion to exempt empty properties from a BRS.

Brian Binley: The Minister is generous in giving way and it is appreciated. He referred to the 50,000 rateable value limit, but the Bill does not come into effect until April 2010, by which time we should have had a revaluation. I wonder whether he will give hope to small businesses by saying today that he would be willing to look at that figure, because if he does not, many more small businesses could be brought into the net.

John Healey: In effect, nine out of 10 businesses fall below a rateable value threshold of 50,000. If the hon. Gentleman has small businesses in mind, it is highly likely that they will be below rather than above that threshold. There is merit in consistency. We have set the minimum threshold at 50,000 and have been consistent on that. We are allowing local levying authorities to set a higher threshold if they wish and if the terms of the scheme suggest that that is right. Once that is in place and operating, there may be a case for looking at how it is working, including the question of the threshold. But it is important to be able to get this in place with a degree of certainty so that businesses can look ahead and know whether or not they are likely to be liable to pay the business rate supplement if, indeed, one is proposed for their area.

Brian Binley: The Minister cannot tell me what the average rateable value will be and we know that the revaluation will be based on the peak property prices in early 2008. Also, rateable values descend as we move out from town centres. Many independent retail businesses in valuable properties in town centres are struggling to survive at the moment, so the level of the rateable value threshold is vital to them.

John Healey: I understand the reason for the hon. Gentleman's concern and the case he has made; he has made it eloquently in Committee as well. Equally, it does not change our stance. I do not wish to repeat myself and the hon. Gentleman can refer to the  Official Report tomorrow.
	The Bill has faced, and stood up to, extensive scrutiny in the House. The Bill sets up a limited but valuable and workable framework from which all businesses could benefit in the long term. I await with interest the debates and comments that we expect from the other place as the Bill passes through there. I commend the Bill to the House.

Bob Neill: I was reminded of the earlier observations by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) about the insidiousness of timetable motions. This substantial Bill has been debated constructively and positively, but the reality is that the operation of the timetable motion means that the Third Reading debate is such a truncated ritual as to be effectively meaningless. Perhaps we need to think about the values of parliamentary procedure.
	We have sought to amend the Bill constructively. We accept its operation in relation to the Crossrail projectthe one area where the debate became a little charged at timesbut we are where we are. I hear what the Minister says and I pay tribute to him for the courteous way in which he and his ministerial colleagues dealt with the Bill and its detail. As always, it has been a pleasure for Front-Bench Members on both sides to interact on the Bill. That said, we remain unpersuaded that the particular situation of Crossrail justifies the roll-out of a poweralbeit a discretionary oneelsewhere in the country. The particular economic circumstances make that especially inappropriate at this time. We should take on board some of the third party observations that were helpfully relayed to the Committee in its evidence sessions. The British Chambers of Commerce made the point that we cannot just look at the discretionary power in isolation. We must consider the business rate supplement in combination with the other burdens on business: the possibility of community infrastructure levies; in some local authorities, the possibility of congestion charging; and the possibility of workplace parking levies, which have to be taken into account in relation to BID levies. All of those together can create a potentially threatening mixture of burdens for firms in a difficult time. That is why we have concerns about the timing of the Bill.
	I am not at all against giving local authorities incentives to assist in the generation of economic development. That is why I think it is ironic that we are introducing this discretionary power to charge businesses more at the same time as the Government have reduced drastically the funding available to the local authority business growth incentive scheme. That juxtaposition causes many of us to be very cynical about the ultimate motivation, particularly behind the Treasury's approach to the Bill.
	Many businesses are struggling at present, and there are missed opportunities in that this Bill could have embraced measures to try to improve their situation. If there is to be a discretionary power to levy a business rate supplement, why not also use the Bill as an opportunity to give a discretionary power to levy a business rate discount? That would have won support in all parts of the House, and I am sad that that opportunity to bring some relief in areas of difficulty was not taken.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Binley) pointed out, it is a pity, too, that opportunities have not been taken to address problems arising from a possible revaluation that may be based on data that are significantly out of date and out of alignment with the current and future economic situation. It would also have been useful if we had taken the opportunity to make small business rate relief automatic, and taken on board the proposals in the private Member's Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Peter Luff), especially as when the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Khan), replied to it on Friday, what he said suggested there was some sympathy for it. There is a sadness, therefore, in that this Bill could have done much more to address the needs of small businesses, but it instead focused on the national roll-out of a scheme that we do not think is appropriate for current circumstances.
	Against that background, and given that we have limited time available, I will not rehash all the arguments that have been made. I hope, however, that when the Bill passes to the other place, the opportunity will be taken to pursue some of those issues on which it was agreed that improvements could be made and more could be done. I note in particular the new clause of the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford), to which Members on both sides of the House were sympathetic, and I hope something can be done in that regard. I hope, too, that we can take forward constructively in the other place what we discussed on Report about the various models by which we can ensure that, if we are to have the BRS system, the business community is party not only to the early stage of its development, but the outworking of the Bill.
	Although measures can be taken to improve the Bill, that does not alter the fact that we remain unhappy with it. We do not intend to vote against it on Third Reading in this House, but we now have to hope that local authorities will show forbearance by not exercising a power that could have unintended harmful consequences in the current circumstances. That is my concern, and that is why we have set out our caveats, and why we look forward to seeing what can be done to the Bill in another place.

Daniel Rogerson: I agree that, as ever, the ministerial team, the civil servants and the Opposition Front-Bench team have conducted the debate and the flow of information in respect of the Bill very constructively, which has been most helpful. I also wish to place on record my thanks to three individuals who have helped me prepare: Beth Warmington, Alex Davies and Lucy Monks put a great deal of work into this Bill, as they have on many other things.
	The Bill is a missed opportunity, in that there are some steps that have not been taken. We are very keen on the principle of allowing local authorities to explore whether this measure is appropriate in their area, which is why we were not able to support the Conservative amendment to restrict it to being a London-only measure. Sadly, however, given the time restriction, we were not able to have a debate about ballots, which is where we part company with the Government, as the Minister knows, because we believe that a ballot should be held in all circumstances.

Lee Scott: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that balloting would be the most sensible way of engaging the business community and getting it behind and on side with all aspects of the Bill?

Daniel Rogerson: Absolutely. I agree with the hon. Gentleman. I think that that has been the feeling of just about everybody on the Opposition Benches throughout the various stages of the Bill.
	We feel that the Bill makes a useful contribution to the big task that local authorities will face, which, as the hon. Member for Halton (Derek Twigg) said, will be in advising and working with business and preparing for the reconstruction of local economies given the circumstances in which we find ourselves. However, we believe that local businesses ought to have more to say through a ballot and that they ought to have greater involvement in the administration of a project through whatever means the Government come up with. Of course, I should put on record the fact that my party supports Crossrail, although that has been almost a separate debate. For that reason, as well as because of our agreement with the principle behind the Bill, even if we have grave doubts about its operation in its current form, we will not oppose it at this stage and we will allow our noble Friends further to consider it.
	I hope that when the Bill is debated in the other place, the Government will have a slightly more generous attitude towards giving way on some of the crucial issues, such as ballots. Perhaps they will revisit business involvement in ongoing oversight and, of course, the interaction with BIDs in order to reassure businesses that they can support BIDs as well as major infrastructure projects to which the BRS might make a contribution.

Derek Twigg: I want to make a brief speech to finish what I was saying before the last vote. First, I completely support what my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench have said. They have been extremely good at listening to the arguments, taking on board the concerns, ensuring that there are safeguards in the Bill and listening to ideas about how they can further those safeguards. I congratulate them on that.
	The Opposition are strong on saying that certain provisions are not great for business and that they will harm business, yet they produce no evidence that that is the case. I listened to what the CBI, the British Chambers of Commerce and other business representatives had to say in the Committee hearings and they made some strong points, but I was left with a disappointing overall view that we still do not trust local government. My experience on the ground does not match up with that. In my area I see a great deal of partnership working and working together to try to deal with the issues that challenge businesses and local communities, and I know that that happens in other areas, too.
	A point was made earlier about the difficult economic climate and it is probably more important than ever that we consider the infrastructure and economic development needs of areas more strongly and in a more focused way than before. That means that the local authorities, with business and the wider community, should work together. I am arguing that local government has come a long way. It often takes the lead in regeneration and economic development and I am disappointed that the Opposition do not trust it. We should put more trust in it, given its track record and the enormous strides that it has made in economic development. Of course, the power is an enabling power. We are not saying that local government has to do anything and that is crucial to remember.
	When the Opposition talk about a ballot, they are actually asking for a veto on these schemes for business, but the schemes do not just affect businessesalthough businesses are being asked to contributebut the wider community, too. I do not support a veto. I believe that what my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government said provides plenty of safeguards. Local government is vibrant and it has taken the lead in some difficult times. It is under additional pressures today, and I believe that it will do the right thing and work with business to bring forward the best possible schemes, which are sensible and logical, to help their areas.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Criminal Law

David Burrowes: I beg to move,
	That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Penalties for Disorderly Behaviour (Amount of Penalty) (Amendment) Order 2009 (S.I., 2009, No. 83), dated 22 January 2009, a copy of which was laid before this House on 23 January, be annulled.
	The motion brings to light, and to the House's attention, the penalties for disorderly behaviour. Without it, the Government would have got away with simply rushing a statutory instrument out a few days before their policy U-turn on the reclassification of cannabis, which went live on 26 January.
	The order that we are considering fixes the amount of penalty for possession of cannabis and restates the existing penalties for other offences such as theft, shoplifting and criminal damage. To determine how we come to be debating it today, we need to head back to the heady days of new Labour in 2000, when on-the-spot fines for minor acts of disorder were the previous Prime Minister's big idea. He told the Global Ethics Foundation in Germany that thugs would be marched by police to cash points. Well, we all recall the response to that suggestion, which was soon revised.

Keith Vaz: Before the hon. Gentleman goes back to those heady days for the history of this matter, will he confirm that the Conservative party supports the reclassification of cannabis from a class C to a class B drug?

David Burrowes: I am grateful for that intervention, as it allows me to make it clear from the outset that we wholeheartedly support the reclassification of cannabis. Indeed, we have always regarded possession of the drug as a class B offence, and we welcome the Government's U-turn in belatedly recognising the harm that it can inflict and its proper status as a class B drug.
	The question at the heart of the motion is not reclassification, but how the class B offence should be enforced. Later, I shall say why the order that we are challenging will lead to a downgrading of enforcement, and explain why it will not ensure that we are tough on cannabis possession.
	I do not propose to go too far into a history lesson, since we still have a globe-trotting Prime Minister, but I point out that penalty notices for disorder have changed. The notion of marching thugs to cash points was revised after only a few days to a recognition that the proper response had to be based on a fixed-penalty notice regime. Now, however, penalty notices do not apply simply to disorder. One would think that there was a clue in the titleafter all, they are penalty notices for disorderbut the notices have been expanded to cover offences that go beyond what we would traditionally call disorder. They now apply to theft and other offences, including the possession of cannabis. It is the latter offence that is the main focus of this debate.
	The list of offences covered by notices could well have been longer than the one in part 1 of the schedule to the order. The Government originally intended to add 21 further offences, including making off without payment and taxi touting. Was it that the Government changed the list only after careful consideration, to leave us eventually with the revised order now before us? No, it was not: the list was revised only after an uproar from representative associations that had not been consulted properly. I understand that there was also a conversation between the Justice Secretary and the Mayor of London the weekend before the order was due to be considered in Committee. It was those steps that led the Government to think again.
	A hastily redrafted statutory instrument that covered cannabis only was laid before Parliament. The statutory instrument relating to the motion before the House today was revoked and revised, and the 21-day period required for proper scrutiny was abridged. I draw the circumvention of normal process to the attention of the House to highlight the Government's ham-fisted approach to that aspect of delegated legislation, and to expose the dangers of increasing out-of-court disposals.
	The use of out-of-court penalties has grown out of all proportion, compared with the number of people coming before our courts. Across England and Wales, in the 12 months to last March, only 724,179 of the 1.4 million offenders brought to justice, as Government-speak would have it, actually came before the courts. This has been described in various forums as justice in secret, and as duff justice in a leader in  The Times not so long ago. I would describe the practice as leading to soft justice. The House does not need to take my word for that, however. John Thornhill, chairman of the Magistrates Association, has said:
	It is crucial for the public to have an open and transparent justice system where victims and witnesses will have confidence that offenders are being dealt with appropriately.
	To illustrate properly what is happening in our courts, and what would happen as a result of the statutory instrument that we have prayed against, I shall give the House an example of what has happened in Staffordshire. The situation came to light last August, when a letter was sent to all the magistrates in the county by the justices' clerk. It highlights the consequences of the increasing use of on-the-spot fines. It says:
	As a result of a reducing workload directly attributable to increased use of fixed penalties and cautions by the police and Crown Prosecution Service, a number of courts have had to be cancelled each week at each of our court houses...I am deeply concerned about the increased use by the prosecuting agencies of judicial powers but it seems that those powers are likely to be used increasingly given that they are a cheaper means of sentencing than by going through a judicial process.

Keith Vaz: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the Conservative party is against fixed penalty notices? They can be useful in certain cases, and I am sure he would accept that the courts are pretty overburdened at the moment. Surely there are circumstances in which these notices have proved to be extremely useful.

David Burrowes: The right hon. Gentleman will have to be patient if he wants to hear our position on fixed penalty notices. They certainly have a place. If penalty notices for disorderly behaviour did exactly what it says on the tin, and were issued only for minor acts of antisocial behaviour, as originally intended, we could see a rationale for them. However, we must challenge the Government over the way in which that rationale has been extended to cover additional offences, including the possession of cannabis.

Humfrey Malins: May I say from a personal point of view that I do not think that many of us have an objection to penalty notices for fairly minor matters, such as being drunk on a highway or depositing litter. I hope that the right hon. Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz) will take that point on board. However, I strongly differentiate those minor matters from offences such as possession of cannabis or theft, which are potentially very serious.

David Burrowes: We can certainly draw that distinction. A case that recently came into the public eye was that of Ashley Cole, who was arrested for being drunk and disorderly and was fined 80. No doubt he was more affected by the 160,000 fine imposed by his club, but that area of offending illustrates the suitability of penalty notices, as their use no doubt relieves the burden on police time and helps all concerned.
	A wholly different situation pertains in regard to other offences, however. Magistrates have contacted me, and the Magistrates Association has stated forcefully that there is ever-increasing scope for the notices to be used beyond their original remits. There is certainly a worry that they are being used more for administrative convenience than for the purpose of ensuring that justice is done and seen to be done. We know that it can be done properly in the magistrates courts, where summary justice should take place.
	The burden on courts has been mentioned, but we should not assume that the expansion of the use of penalty notices will lead to a reduction of the burden on magistrates. The administrative burden is still there. Approximately half of all penalty notices for disorder are unpaid, and it is the magistrates who have to follow those cases through to try to enforce the payment of those unpaid fines. That is particularly relevant to this statutory instrument, and to the related instrument that the Delegated Legislation Committee considered in January. The explanatory memorandum to that statutory instrument stated that the costs of enforcement may be in the order of 1.5 million by year 3. On 22 January I asked the Minister for an assurance that the overstretched court budgets would be able properly to enforce the expansion of the penalty notice for disorder regime to cannabis. I repeat that question today and hope that there will be an answer.
	The Government say that penalty notices for disorder are an appropriate penalty for possession of cannabis. They say, as the Minister did on 22 January, that they are an extra weapon in the police's armoury. They talk belatedly about being tough on cannabis, now recognising, as Conservative Members have all along, that cannabis is a harmful drug, and increasingly so given the high potency of the skunk varieties that are on our streets. They talk about wanting such possession to be robustly enforced. However, what is the reality behind this talk? Let us be clear that the use of fixed penalty notices for cannabis possession and the attraction, under the order, of a penalty of 80, is not a tough sanction. It leads to no criminal liability, and there is no admission of guilt and no criminal record.
	The Government want to use penalty notices for several activities, including dog fouling and illegal cycling. How, in that context, can we consider them to be properly used for possession of cannabis?

Douglas Hogg: It is surely more serious to use such a notice for theft or for giving a false report to the police, which in certain circumstances can amount to perverting the course of justice.

David Burrowes: I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend. Indeed, such cases can also involve other offences or attract other criminal liabilities. That is why these offences are most properly dealt with in the magistrates court. Earlier today, my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) introduced a ten-minute Bill that outlined the prevalence of shoplifting and the importance of its being dealt with other than as at present, whereby shoplifters, on repeat offending, are given penalty notices, which does not satisfy the victim and certainly does not satisfy justice.
	Year by year, the Government have often treated criminal justice legislation as a messaging service when they want to sound tough, and it is no different in relation to cannabis. However, let us look at what enforcement really means. Often, the fixed penalty notice and 80 penalty is imposed not on an offender coming to the attention of the police for the first time but on a repeat offender. The Government have introduced what could be termed a three strikes policy for cannabis possession: strike 1 is the warning, strike 2 is the fixed penalty notice, and strike 3 is the arrest. However, the police will often struggle even to get beyond strike 1 because warnings are not being recorded. In previous discussions, the Minister herself has accepted that the position in many areas is hit and miss. With that first strike, we are in the realms of hit and miss. It does not give much confidence that the possession of cannabis will be dealt with robustly.
	The computer systemPentiPis not in place to be able to deal with the regime that the statutory instrument would have us enforce. It was due to be introduced in September 2009, at a cost of 9.3 millionan amount that has increased, as ever with such systems, to 19.3 million. We now have an indication that implementation will not take place until May 2012, yet in the recent debate the Minister said that the implementation date would be 2010. I ask the Minister once again to provide some reassurance on the implementation date of the computer system, because it is crucial that the warning be recorded if there is to be effective enforcement of the three-strike policy; otherwise, people can run up multiple warnings before a fixed penalty notice is deemed appropriate. Even if a person gets past the first and second strikes, let us not forget what we are left with at the third strike. It would effectively be a third offence, and would lead to arrest. That could involve prosecution, and the case could eventually go to the magistrates court, but it could simply mean a caution, or indeed no further action.
	I do not wish to dwell today on the reclassification of cannabis; we have been consistent on that subject. The question for debate today is why, for possession of cannabis, enforcement should take the form of an 80 fixed penalty notice. Is that decision based on the prevalence of the drug? Is that why cannabis is to attract a fixed penalty notice? If that is the case, why does the policy not extend to ketamine, a class C drug that is increasingly becoming the drug of choice for young people? Is there a risk that the penalty notice for disorder regime will be extended to other drugs? Can the Minister provide a specific assurance that there will not be such an extension to other drugs, whether they be class B or class C? Would issues of prevalence, or any evidence that disorder was affected by the possession of drugs, lead to fixed penalty notice enforcement?
	The problem with the statutory instrument is that there is a lack of evidence on the effect of the penalty notice for disorder. No doubt it assists the Government with their targets on bringing offenders to justice. No doubt it relieves the police of some paperwork and saves some time. However, what is the evidence that it deters offenders and ensures that justice is done? The Magistrates Association has called on the Government to gather and publish evidence, and I invite the Minister to take up that call and to say where the evidence is to justify the expansion in penalty notices for disorder. Have the Government considered the efficacy of the enforcement regime for possession of cannabis in Scotland and Northern Ireland? They have ruled out cannabis warnings, and there is a presumption of prosecution.
	The order before us is not just about cannabis. As hon. Friends have pointed out, it deals with other serious offences, including theft and criminal damage. As we heard earlier today, this year there have been some 295,000 shoplifting offences; that is 6,000 a week. The largest increase in the number of penalty notices for disorder issued has been for shoplifting. The number rose from 38,000 in 2006 to 45,000 in 2007. Will the Minister provide reassurance that the use of fixed penalty notices for theft will be limited to first-time offenders, as my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of York has suggested? When, as is often the case, there are underlying causes of theft, such as the need to feed an addiction to drugs or alcohol, will that lead to intervention by the court? The court is best placed to deal with an order for treatment to deal with those underlying causes. That opportunity would be completely lost if a fixed penalty notice were simply issued.
	I now come to the issue of criminal damage. Did the Minister assess the impact of reinstating the penalty for criminal damage before hastily putting the order together? Has she assessed the impact on the victim? When a fixed penalty notice is issued, the victim does not benefit from the opportunity to receive a compensation order for up to 500 through a magistrates court. Does the Minister have any details of whether such victims have taken up the only opportunity left to them, which is to pursue a civil claim? Has there been any consideration of those victims, who say that they have lost the opportunity to get true justice through the courts?

Douglas Hogg: May I ask my hon. Friend to emphasise, too, the undesirability of using fixed penalties in respect of sale of alcohol to persons under 18? After all, it is an important part of the Government's strategy to abate alcohol misuse, which lies at the root of much other crime, especially violence. That being so, surely fixed penalties for the sale of alcohol to persons under 18 are disproportionate and unwise.

David Burrowes: I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend. The Magistrates Association made a similar point about that offence, which is associated more often than not with violence, not being downgraded to a fixed penalty notice. It is important that we look at the rationale for each extension and whether there should be an extension. The concern that many share and which the Government have not answered is that the extension is designed to relieve administrative burdens, rather than to seek true justice in each individual case.
	The order has been put together in haste. It is intended to meet the Government's policy U-turn on cannabis and to ensure that they have an enforcement regime in place, but it is an order that cannot be supported. That is the reason for the motion to annul the order. We cannot support what is, in effect, a downgrading of enforcement on cannabis. We cannot support an order that goes soft on proper enforcement or which further undermines summary justice and justice that should be administered primarily by a magistrates court, which is the public forum that is there for all to see, so that victims can receive justice and there is transparency. For those reasons, I urge the House to support the motion to annul the order.

Maria Eagle: I begin by trying to deal with some of the points made by the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Burrowes). We can agree across the House that cannabis use is harmful. Cannabis is an illegal drug and should not be taken. It needs to be tackled through a comprehensive package of measures as part of a drug strategy that includes prevention, education, early intervention, enforcementwhich is what we are dealing withand treatment when that is necessary.
	We believe that cannabis can pose a real threat to health. It can produce both immediate and longer-term harm to physical and mental health. For that reason, enforcement of the fact that it is illegal is an important part of deterring its use and trying to ensure that we minimise the harm caused to and by those who use it.

Humfrey Malins: If the Minister's argument is right, why permit possession of cannabis to be treated by a penalty notice, which does not involve a criminal record and never comes to the notice of the court or anybody else? It is as though the offender has not done anything, if they pay the money. Why do that if it is important, as the hon. Lady says, to bring offenders into court for treatment?

Maria Eagle: I shall deal with that point. At present, the 2004 Association of Chief Police Officers' administrative arrangements on cannabis warnings for possession are in use. Any police officer catching somebody in possession has the immediate capacity and jurisdiction to arrest if the circumstances warrant it, but if it is simple possession with no aggravating features, he or she may take the view that some sort of warning is appropriate if it is a first offence. At present there is an administrative warning in Englanda cannabis warningwhich, anecdotally, has been used on more than one occasion.
	The arrangements that we are putting in place through the order, part of which introduces a penalty notice for disorder for a second offence, create an escalation such that an individual who is caught in possession, in circumstances that the officer concerned considers appropriate, can receive a cannabis warningan administrative warningfor a first offence, a PND for a second offence, and can be arrested for a third offence. This is a regime of escalation. I accept the importance of sending signals, as the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate said. He called the measure a three-strike policy, but it is an attempt to escalate the consequences of being caught more than once.

Keith Vaz: What would the Minister say to the point made by the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Burrowes)? He said that the first stage in the three-stage processI think it a good processis not recorded and therefore cannot be monitored.

Maria Eagle: That is a good point, as I have accepted in previous discussions. There are local arrangements within particular forces for making notes of such things. PNDs are now available, and can be issued for offences; that has been possible since 26 January, as the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate said.
	Possession of cannabis is a recordable offence and should therefore be put on the police national computer within 24 hours; that is the arrangement. That, of course, works only if a cannabis warning has already been given as part of the escalation. PentiP, the computer system that will record cannabis warnings and PNDs across England, will be in operation by 2010. Until then, we will rely on local forces' own, more informal recording of cannabis warnings. The PND would, of course, be recorded on the police national computer and there would be an arrest for a further offence of possession.
	I remind the House, however, that every investigating officer uses his or her judgment at the time and in the circumstances. They certainly have the power to arrest for a first offence if there is an aggravating featureif there appears to be an attempt to supply or if the individual is hanging around outside a school gate, for example. We want the individual police officer to exercise their professional judgment, and it is possible for them to arrest for a first offence.

Keith Vaz: I thank the Minister for the spirit in which she has addressed the point made by the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate. Bearing in mind that she has accepted that it is important that we record the first stage, could she not speak to the Home Secretary about the matter? The Home Secretary could write to the chief constables of the 43 authorities and tell them that, in her view, it would be a good idea if they started to make sure that these matters were recorded in local notes. After all, we accept the sensible points made by the hon. Gentleman.

Maria Eagle: I am happy to talk to the Home Secretary, but I do not accept that these matters are not recorded locally, although I accept that there might be disparities in how well they are recorded and that they might not all be recorded as one would hope. By 2010, when PentiP comes in, we should have a more reliable, England-wide recording system.

Douglas Hogg: The Minister fairly said that the police have discretion to arrest and charge. However, does she agree that the fixed penalty is an easier option for the officer, who does not have to go through the arresting and recording process and subsequently, if necessary, go to court? There is therefore a real risk that the fixed penalties will be used by officers as an easy option and that appropriate prosecution will not follow.

Maria Eagle: We have to trust the professional judgment of the officers out on the beat. I would not expect them to issue a PND when there were aggravating features and the person should have been arrested.

David Davies: Will the Minister give way?

Maria Eagle: I will, but I will answer one point before taking another.
	It is important that we trust the professionalism of the officer on the beat, who knows what they see in front of them. There is always a balance to be struck. Hon. Members often complain about the bureaucracy surrounding the police and the paperwork that they have to fill in. We have to be careful not to prescribe precisely what should happen in every circumstance. We have to trust the professional judgment of the officers concerned, and I am content to do that.
	We are seeking an arrangement that will enable that officer to use their professional judgment, while enabling us as a society to show the escalating effect of repeated offences, which we have not had until now. That will allow us to make clear to those who continue to wander about in possession of this drug that that is not acceptable. After a certain period of time, certain leeway and certain warnings, they will be taken before the court and dealt with appropriately.

Humfrey Malins: The Under-Secretary is being generous in giving way, and she is taking the argument seriously, which we all appreciate. However, given that a penalty notice apparently does not require an admission of guilt and does not result in any record of a criminal conviction, what will the position be in court when the magistrate or the district judge asks for a list of matters known against the defendant, which are vital in sentencing? Will there be absolutely nothing, or something?

Maria Eagle: As I said, the PND for a recordable offence is put on to the police national computer, and it will be known to that degree. Magistrates will be aware of the usual escalation and will be aware that there have been previous offences.

Humfrey Malins: How?

Maria Eagle: As I say, because it is a recordable offence, the PND is on the police national computer. If these matters get to court, magistrates will deal with them in the usual way.  [ Interruption. ] The hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) is harassing me from a sedentary position, but those of us who have experience of the courts can say that magistrates are perfectly capable of dealing with matters that come before them, and of doing so in an efficient and sensible way.
	There has been some concern about the level of the fine. The hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate said that 80, which is the level at which the financial penalty will be fixed under this order, was too little. I do not know whether this assists the House, but the average fine for cannabis possession in 2006 was just under 80, and just over 81 in 2007. The level of financial penalty will be about the same as the average fine when a case is taken to court, according to the latest statistics. I hope that that allays any concerns about whether the penalty is sufficient.
	The hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate referred to enforcement, and the hon. Member for Woking knows that it is right that only about half of PNDs are paid, because he was nodding when his hon. Friend made his remarks. If they are not paid, they are increased by 50 per cent. and enforced as fines. I can tell the House that 85 per cent. of fines are collected, but I cannot disaggregate the percentage that started out as PNDs. There is a high chance that enforcement will follow, and one wishes that individuals who are subject to a financial penalty would pay it, and that the matter would be enforced if they did not. Certainly, 85 per cent. is not a bad place to start, but we are always focusing on fine enforcement to increase that level.
	We believe that PNDs offer a proportionate second step in the escalation process. Cannabis is the most widely used drug, and the PND offers a method of disposal that provides a greater penalty than simply an administrative warningthe cannabis warning that the Association of Chief Police Officers uses in England at present. It offers a disincentive to the individual concerned of a financial penalty to make them think about their behaviour, which a cannabis warning does not. If a person chooses not to pay the penalty notice, they remain liable to be convicted, and will be chased under the enforcement arrangements for the penalty that they have not paid. We therefore believe that penalty notices represent an escalation from the cannabis warning and a salutary and important suggestion to people that if they overstep the mark again, they will be going to court.
	The hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate and the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) made points about the use of PNDs changing in respect of some offences. I accept that there has been a move away from using them simply for disorder, which is where their name came from. They now cover a variety of minor antisocial offences. The right hon. and learned Gentleman made the point that PNDs are used for some offences that sound too serious to be dealt with in that way. However, they are designed to be used only at the very lowest end of the scale of those offences. For example, in the case of false reporting to police, they are for abuse of 999 calls. One would not expect them to be used for such offences at a higher level. They provide an extra option at the lowest end for the police when they are trying to make use of the limited resources that are always available. There is never enough money for them to do everything that one would wish them to do.
	The hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate asked how issuing fixed penalty notices can be seen as being tougher. The answer is simply that we are moving to an escalating arrangement whereby it will be made obvious to the person committing an offence that things will get worse if they continue to behave in the same manner. We trust in the professionalism and good sense of our police officers out on the beat to make the appropriate choice, in the circumstances that they find in front of them, about whether a penalty notice is the right way forward for a particular offender. Of course, they always retain the capacity to arrest if they believe it appropriate.

David Burrowes: I hear the Minister's point about the important principle of trusting our police to make decisions, but have the Government made any analysis of whether the Scottish and Northern Irish devolved Administrations trust their police more? They allow them the discretion to refer people for prosecution rather than use cannabis warnings or the escalation arrangement that the Government want to introduce. Surely the position there is eminently preferable, as there is discretion to prosecute.

Maria Eagle: The point is that in Northern Ireland and Scotland, the administrative arrangements for cannabis warnings set out by the Association of Chief Police Officers have not been in place. If someone is caught in possession, they are therefore considered for prosecution. As all the lawyers in the House will know, being considered for prosecution does not necessarily mean that one ends up being prosecuted. Charges might not be brought, or there might be other reasons why a case does not end up before the courts.
	On the financial penalty itself, as I have said, the average fine for simple possession offences in 2006 and 2007 was about the 80 mark that we have set for PNDs in the order. I cannot say that I have research to hand on whether public officials trust their courts and police more in Northern Ireland and Scotland. I will have to ask back at the Department a little later whether there is any such research, and if there is, I shall certainly point it out to the hon. Gentleman.
	I hope that I have managed to deal with some of the points that have been made about the order, which the Opposition seek to annul. I hope that the House does not annul it, as along with the reclassification upwards, it forms an important part of the new arrangements for dealing properly and efficiently, but sensibly, with possession offences. Bearing in mind the fact that police retain the discretion to arrest for a first offence if they feel it appropriate, I hope that the House will agree that we should go ahead and ensure that the order is in force.

Paul Holmes: As we have heard, the reason for our being here this afternoon is a long story. The original statutory instrument, which was laid before the House in December, had to be withdrawn at short notice because the Government had not consulted about many of its provisionsfor example, the one on taxi touts. Taxi touting was one of the 21 new offences that were included in that statutory instrument. As a result of having to withdraw it hastily, the Government introduced the order that we are considering, which relates specifically to cannabis as the only new offence of the original 21.
	Penalty notices for disorder are, in principle, good policy instruments for several reasons. First, they save police time. The Under-Secretary made one of the standard arguments, which we hear all the time, about the amount of paperwork and bureaucracy that keeps police from carrying out their front-line duties and ties them up in the station. Using penalty notices for disorder in the appropriate circumstances is a great time-saver. I believe that it takes half an hour to issue a penalty notice for disorder, compared with a minimum of two and a half hours for a more detailed case if the police have to go down another route. That is a great advantage.
	Secondly, PNDs help to avoid criminalisation. Again, that is welcome in the correct circumstances. I tabled an amendment to the Policing and Crime Bill, which has recently completed its Committee stage, that would have a similar effect. I proposed that local authorities could take similar measures against graffiti and fly-posting and use restorative justice, thus allowing the offenders to repair the damage that they had done and avoid getting a criminal record. Hopefully, that early shock would prevent people from going on to greater criminal activity. We support the principles of restorative justice and trying to avoid criminalisation at the first stage of offending.
	However, PNDs are supposed to be used for only minor public order offences and minor antisocial behaviour offences, not serious offences. A concern about the original statutory instrument was that several of the offences were more serious than the minor offences for which the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 provided.
	In principle, we support penalty notices for disorder, but we have doubts about how they work in general, and specifically about their use for cannabis offences. Where is the evidence base for the policy? Eight years have passed since the 2001 Act, which was extended in 2004 to bring children over 10 within its scope. Incidentally, I understand that, in the previous statutory instrument debate, the Under-Secretary said that PNDs would not be used for people under 18 who used drugs and that other Acts would apply in that case.
	Some 400,000 PNDs have been issued in the eight years since they were introduced. After eight years, what do we know about their effectiveness? The Magistrates Association is sceptical about how far an 80 fine would go in deterring someone who was found selling alcohol to minors, presumably from an off-licence. How do PNDs tie up with other Government police policy, such as the Policing and Crime Bill's dropping the three strikes and you're out to two for licensees? If there are to be only two steps, where does the 80 PND fit in that sequence?
	It appears that only 50 per cent. of the people issued with the notices pay. Where is the research into what happens next? What happens to the 50 per cent. who do not pay? How effectively are they pursued? Where is the research base to show whether PNDs work? As a first step, do they help to prevent people from being criminalised and reoffending? What are the reoffending rates? It appearsremarkablythat, eight years after PNDs were introduced, no research has been conducted to ascertain whether they are effective as well as widely used. In answer to a parliamentary question, the Minister for Security, Counter-Terrorism, Crime and Policing said:
	We have...no overall assessment.[ Official Report, 5 March 2009; Vol. 488, c. 1772W.]
	For a Government who long ago proclaimed that they believed in evidence-based policy making, it seems strange that they should have neither the evidence nor the research to follow the policy through.

Maria Eagle: Some recent research has suggested that issuing fixed penalty notices has a positive effect, but the evidence would not be described as conclusive. More work needs to done to shore up the evidence base, but some research has indicated a positive impact.

Paul Holmes: I thank the Minister for that answer, which relates to one of my final points. I hope that the Government will commit to carrying out more research on the measure, which, in principle, is a sensible move when used in the right low-level circumstances. However, although we might believe that something is effective, it seems pointless to use it for eight years, 10 years or longer without checking whether it delivers the desired results.
	The Magistrates Association, which has been referred to a few times, has quite a few concerns about the use of PNDs and about the order before us, although I do not quite agree with one of them. The association is concerned that magistrates can be sidelined where PNDs are used. As I have already said, that is in part one of the benefits of PNDs for low-level disorder. The hope is that PNDs will catch minor offenderspresumably first-time offendersand thereby prevent them from being taken to court, being criminalised and getting a record. Sidelining the magistrates courts and keeping such people out of the criminal justice system at that point would be a good thing, if PNDs are used in the correct circumstances.

Douglas Hogg: What the hon. Gentleman is saying is in part correct, but there is a disadvantage in respect of first-time offenders, which was outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Malins). If someone has a drug problem that underlies the commission of that first offence, they do not have the opportunity to have it dealt with by a criminal court, which can make the proper provision.

Paul Holmes: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is quite right; indeed, that is one of the points that I was coming to and it is also one that the Magistrates Association has made. I disagree with the Magistrates Association on the general principle of magistrates being sidelined by PNDs, because the whole point is to try to avoid criminalisation at the first, low-level stage. However, there are a number of cases where PNDs are usedthere would have been a lot more had the statutory instrument been introduced in Decemberwhere that might be appropriate.
	The example that the right hon. and learned Gentleman gave is exactly one of those cases. Does the use of PNDs for more serious offenders tackle the root cause? If a shoplifter is given a PND the first time they are caught and if the reason they are shoplifting is that they are addicted to alcohol or drugs and trying to feed their habit, giving them a PND, which they are probably not going to pay anyway because of their disorderly lifestyle, will not lead them to the kind of treatment that might result from a court order higher up. As I keep saying, PNDs have to be used in the appropriate circumstances for quite low-level offences, which was the original intention in 2001.
	The Magistrates Association has expressed other concerns. One is that magistrates courts have a much better success rate in collecting fines than the 50 per cent. for PNDs. The association has also pointed out that magistrates courts are not funded by the Government for all the extra work created as result of having to deal with the fall-out from whatever proportion of the 50 per cent. who do not pay their PNDs are sent to magistrates courts.
	Magistrates are worried that the Government intend at a later stagealthough obviously not with the order before us todayto reintroduce some, most or all of the 20 or so more serious offences that were intended in December, which magistrates do not think are appropriate for PNDs. Those offences include throwing stones at trains. I could see that a PND might apply if someone is throwing a very small stone. However, if someone is throwing things of any size at trains, it does not take much of a leap of the imagination to see them throwing a brick through a window and killing a driver, which has happened at least once. That is not a minor offence. There is therefore concern about what might be included at a future date if we move from minor offences to more serious ones.
	There is some concern about inflexibility and the fact that the figure is 50 or 80, whereas magistrates can use a lot more discretion and judgment. However, that inflexibility is probably inevitable if we are looking for a quick and simple measure that police officers can use to avoid spending half their shift in the station filling out paperwork, rather than being out on the beat.
	There are a number of concerns, then, about the way PNDs are working out in practiceor might be if they are extended in the way originally proposedbut the principle remains good.
	Specifically on cannabis, there seem to be huge inconsistencies in Government thinking about the drug. Recently, and against all the scientific evidence presented to thema point to which I shall returnthe Government upgraded cannabis to a class B drug. Here, however, in this instrument, they are treating cannabis as a more minor offence that is suitable for a PND in the first instance. That is a complete contradiction: either cannabis is a serious class B drug or it is not, and no other class B drug is included. Ketamine, amphetamines and Ritalin are sometimes mentioned as drugs that can be misused, so why are they not on the list if the Government really believe that all class B drugsnow including cannabisshould be treated in a certain way related to how dangerous they are?

Keith Vaz: Did the Liberal Democrats support the regrading of cannabis from a class C to a class B drug?

Paul Holmes: I am sure the right hon. Gentleman knowsbut I am glad to put it on the record againthat we did not because there is absolutely no evidence to justify it, as I shall explain more fully shortly.

Maria Eagle: Let me clarify why cannabis does not equate to other class B drugs in this regard. It is because although cannabis is relatively simple to identify, some of the other drugs that the hon. Gentleman identified have to be carted off and analysed forensically, so they are not suitable for a PND.

Paul Holmes: I am grateful for that, but some confusion remains. If we go back to the original debate on the statutory instrument in January, we find some discussion of different types of cannabis took placethere is cannabis, but there is also skunk, for example, and they are of very different strengths. After the seizure of cannabis on the street on a dark night, how can a police officer identify it at first glance and say whether it is skunk or a less strong and thus less dangerous form of cannabis? As I have said, considerable confusion is evident: is cannabis a class B drug or not, and is it to be treated as a low-level offence or not? The whole issue seems to be riddled with inconsistencies.
	None of that is surprising, given the Government's approach to cannabis and their policy on upgrading it to a class B drug. The Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, which comprises 31 scientific experts, including pharmacologists, psychologists and the whole range, is in a position to provide the Government specifically with expert and impartial scientific advice. It said overwhelmingly that there was no case for upgrading cannabis to a class B drug, but the Government went ahead anyway, just as they went ahead in the opposite direction by not downgrading ecstasy from a class A to a class B drug, which the same advisory council had said should be done.
	This is not the way to make criminal policy or drug policy, as it is simply using legislation as a press release or as a means of getting tabloid headlines, which are a short hit with the voting public, but have no effect whatever on what happens in real life. We see a parallel example in the Policing and Crime Bill, which increases the fine for possessing alcohol in a prohibited public place. It is currently 500 and it is to be increased to 2,500, but nobody has ever been fined more than 250 and most people do not pay it anyway. It is pure grandstanding and pure headline making rather than serious criminal legislation or serious drug policy.
	Many people were disappointed by the Government's decision totally to ignore the overwhelming scientific advice on cannabis. When the Phillips report on the BSE disaster was produced, there seemed to be a general acceptance among politicians and the Government that, in future, public policy should be based on proper scientific research and evidence rather than a political knee-jerk reaction and whim.

David Davies: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, but I think that we have sat here listening to this cannabis isn't dangerous argument long enough. If he feels that way, does he agree that it is disgraceful that barristers in courts of law often use their clients' dependence on cannabis as some sort of excuse for serious offences? If he thinks that cannabis is not harmful, does he agree that that should never again be accepted in a court of law as an excuse for breaking the law?

Paul Holmes: I am puzzled by that intervention. First, I have never said and never would say that cannabis is not harmfulin fact, I am going on to say just the oppositeand nobody has said that during the course of this debate. I do not know where the hon. Gentleman pulled that one fromcertainly not from anything I have said. Secondly, dependence on cannabis should never be used as an excuse for wrongdoing in a court of law. I agree that barristers sometimes behave in a disgraceful way when arguing their case, but then I have never been a barrister, and have never had any desire to be one.

David Davies: Will the hon. Gentleman give way again?

Paul Holmes: No, not if the hon. Gentleman's intervention would be of the same standard as the previous one.
	There is much to be said about the part played by facts and scientific evidence in the making of policy on matters as serious as drugs and criminal activity posing danger to individuals. Between 1998 and 2005, notwithstanding all the folk moral panics that the  Daily Mail and others keep spreading, the number of instances of people being registered with doctors, psychiatrists and psychologists owing to problems such as schizophrenia were falling. We were told, however, that the number of cases of schizophrenic disorder were increasing because of the increase in skunk usage. The evidence suggested the exact opposite, but, as we have seen on a number of occasions, it was a case of Don't let the facts get in the way of a good bit of knee-jerk posturing.
	Following the decriminalisation of cannabis by the present Government in 2004, cannabis use decreased. According to all the knee-jerk posturing it had increased, but, again, all the evidence suggested the exact oppositeand again it was a case of Don't let the facts get in the way of preventing sensible policy-making.
	As for whether cannabis is dangerous, of course it is dangerous. Lots of drugs are dangerous. Aspirin is dangerous. Alcohol is dangerous. According to one member of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, Professor David Nutt,
	Alcohol is more harmful
	more harmful than cannabis, that is
	to the population, certainly, and to the individual, possibly.
	Alcohol is a legal drug, but, according to all the scientific evidence, it is more harmful than cannabis. People say that cannabis leads to harder drugs. It is 100 per cent. guaranteed that anyone who has ever taken a harder drug, although they may or may not have started with cannabis, drank alcohol before proceeding to harder drugs. People keep repeating a nonsensical theory of cause and effect. Of course cannabis is dangerous. Of course smoking cigarettes is dangerous, although at least it does not cause violent or antisocial behaviour. Of course alcohol is dangerous.
	I have often been out on patrol with the police. If one asks what causes them the most problems during a typical working week out on the streets, they will say that, above all else, it is alcohol. Recently, when we were taking evidence during the Committee stage of the Policing and Crime Bill, I asked what substance needed most to be controlled. The answer was alcohol. Of course cannabis is dangerousall drugs arebut we have a legal drug that is far more dangerous, and we treat it much more leniently than cannabis. Cannabis is less dangerous, but we treat it much more harshly.

Bob Spink: I understand where the hon. Gentleman is coming from, but will he give an honest answer to this question? I do not know whether he has children, but would he allow his children to drink alcohol, and would he recommend the use of cannabis to them?

Paul Holmes: As one who has always found the drinking of alcohol more than enough of an issuealthough at least alcohol tells people when they have had too much, because they start to slur, fall over and get headachesI would not suggest that anyone should take drugs, illegal or otherwise. However, I do not think that that is the point. What we are discussing is the reality of the world in which we live. How can we deal sensibly with the misuse of drugs, whether or not they are illegal drugs such as amphetamines, ketamine, cannabis, heroin, crack cocaine, ecstasy and LSD? To me it seems self-evident that the sensible way to deal with such drug issues is to examine the scientific evidence and make rational policy based on it.
	Why should we treat a drug such as cannabis, which the experts say is less harmful than alcohol, more severely than alcohol? That is illogical. I know that part of the reason is historicalalcohol has been around in western society for much longer than cannabis, and we are where we arebut that is no excuse for a Government of either party to keep digging themselves in deeper by ignoring all the scientific evidence on which they themselves have called, and then to say, We'll ignore all that, because we must get a tabloid headline.

Humfrey Malins: The hon. Gentleman is making plain to the House his belief that alcohol is more harmful than cannabis. Very well. He was asked a question earlier; let me now ask him to answer it in a straightforward way. If he had a daughter who said to him on a Friday night, I propose, Daddy, to take three spliffs of skunk or three glasses of wine, which would he prefer her to take? Let us have a straight answer in the context of a family situation.

Paul Holmes: I would prefer the wine. I could sit around the table and drink a glass of wine with that personI do with my children, two of whom are now adults. However, I do not think that that is particularly relevant to what we are saying.
	I wish to quote one or two more people who know what they are talking about on these issues. Professor David Nutt of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs said:
	Some individuals do get unpleasant mental reactions
	from cannabis use
	but they are relatively small in number.
	We can also say that quite a large number of individuals get an unpleasant mental reaction from the misuse of alcohol. He continued:
	We are not convinced that moving it to Class B with the possibility of five years' imprisonment for possession will have any beneficial effects,
	but the Government went ahead anyway.
	There has been a reaction from various bodies that work to help drug addicts and people with these huge social, personal problems. Transform, the drugs policy think tank that was quoted earlier, said:
	It's a decision that has been taken for political reasons, to trump the Tories' law and order agenda, rather than for any scientific reason.
	Nobody is going to be put off smoking cannabis by the decision to reclassify it...cannabis can be dangerous to a few
	I have accepted that it can be
	yet two million people regularly smoke itwe should have a regulated and supervised market for it, rather than putting its distribution in the hands of criminals.
	That is one end of the spectrum.
	The independent drugs charity DrugScope said:
	We remain concerned that the government rejected independent expert advice...a worrying precedent has been set.
	There is no evidence that moving the drug to Class B will of itself reduce levels of use, harm or availability nor is there evidence that the public wants to see tougher penalties for cannabis possession, particularly for young people.
	 Cannabis is a harmful drug,
	as I have said,
	and we do need to be vigilant. Using the classification system to 'send out a message'
	rather than looking at the real effect based on the science,
	is a blunt and questionable approach, particularly if it risks undermining...credibility.
	To return to a previous example, I remember when I was a teacher, about 15 years ago. It was exam season and the 16-year-olds were off on exam leave for their GCSEs. One lunchtime a group of them were in a classroom. They had not been at school for a week or two, and I went in to have a chat with them. They were arguing. Three or four of the girls were berating one of their friends because that night after the exam she was going to smoke some cannabis with her friends. She was arguing, saying, Tonight, you'll be out drinking lager in the town centre with all your friends falling over, vomiting and getting violent and shouting. I'll be sat having a chilled, happy chat with my friends at home not doing that. Which is better? That was that 16-year-old's opinion some 15 years ago. As a teacher with 22 years' experience, I can say that 16, 17 and 18-year-olds are smart, intelligent and savvy. If someone tells them lies about the impact of a particular drug, they are not going to believe them. We must base policy making on sensible, rational approaches, and making cannabis a class B drug is not such an approach, as every bit of scientific evidence shows and as every group of experts who work in the field have said repeatedly.
	There are a number of questions, all of which I have touched on. Will the missing 20 offences be introduced after December and added to the PNDs, in which case there will be some concern that PNDs, which are good in principle, are moving away from minor, low-level offences into more serious offences? Which is inappropriate? Will some violent offences be included? They were going to be among the original 21. Apparently, the magistrates feel from lobbying the Government that they have won that one and those offences will not be included.
	Will research on the effectiveness of PNDs be undertaken? As I say it is eight years since the experiment began. It was a very good one and probably should be working. However, we should know whether it is or not, and not just assume it. That was the point I made about drugs policy: let us base it on evidence and reality, not on what we think. Will other class B drugs be included at a later stage and treated in this way? Apparently, from what the Minister said earlier, they will not be, but it seems illogical. If cannabis is a class B drug, why treat it in such a low-level way with a PND and why not treat other class B drugs in that way?
	There is no consistency in what the Government are doing. The order is poorly researched. It is illogical and inconsistent in singling out one class B drug. We believe, for reasons other than those advanced by the Tories, that the House should reject the order and that the Government should go away and think again.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I now have to announce the results of Divisions deferred from a previous day. On the question relating to the second strategic energy review and European energy networks, the Ayes were 269 and the Noes were 65, so the Ayes have it.
	On the question relating to representation of the people, the Ayes were 402 and the Noes were 58, so the Ayes have it.
	On the question relating to the Adjournment (Easter), the Ayes were 273 and the Noes were 195, so the Ayes have it.
	 [The Division lists are published at the end of today's debates.]

Keith Vaz: It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Paul Holmes), but I would not want the public watching from the Gallery or on the Parliament Channel to think that the only choice that Members of Parliament give to their children is, Would you like some red wine or some cannabis? The hon. Gentleman very honestly answered the question from the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Malins), but there are other social activities available to the children of Members of Parliament.

Paul Holmes: Simply for clarification of the record, and before my words are twisted, I was responding to a hypothetical question from a Tory Member. It was not something that I suggested.

Keith Vaz: Absolutely, and the hon. Gentleman was not given a multiple choice beyond wine or cannabis. I am sure that in Chesterfield there are lots of other choices available to the children of Members of Parliament.
	This is a very serious debate and although the hon. Member for Chesterfield pointed to what he regarded as an inconsistency on the part of the Government in hyping the importance of a debate on drugs yet ensuring that the penalty was not as serious as it should be by using this method of enforcement, I think that there is agreement on all sides of the House about the harmful effects of cannabis and the serious nature of drug taking.
	At the moment, the country is gripped by the story of Julie Myerson and her young son in the book The Lost Child. I have not read the book but there has been much press comment about it and about how a parent can become so frustrated with the drug taking of his or her child that they lock them out and exclude them from their homes. That is not the only example; there are many other case histories that we have read about.
	The Government are right to begin any consideration of the policy of enforcement with a clear and unequivocal statement about drug taking and drug use. The Minister was right to point out the harmful effects of taking cannabis. There is research and medical evidence to support what she said and although this debate is not specifically about cannabisin the sense of whether our penalties are severe or notand is on a limited motion that deals with enforcement, it is important that the House looks at the issue.
	I am pleased to see in his place the hon. Member for Monmouth (David T.C. Davies), who is a member of the Select Committee that I chair. The Committee has decided to undertake a major inquiry into drugs that will begin at the beginning of April. We will look not just at what the Government have done in this case and at classification, but at the way in which drugs enter this country and at whether the penalties are sufficient to deal with what has been an increase in the availability of cannabis and other drugs. It will be a long inquiry and will be concluded at the end of the year, and we are willing and eager to have evidence and views from all political parties.
	The hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Burrowes) made what I regarded as a thoughtful speech in which he accepted the Government's position on cannabis but was worried about the process. He is perfectly entitled to be concerned about these matters, but I ask him not to let the process get in the way of a decision that has to be made by the House today. I hope that the Conservative party will not vote to have the order annulled because it is important that we have the necessary penalties in place to deal with the situation. I know that he feels that the penalties are not sufficient. I gather from his speech that he would like the 80 fine that is to be imposed to be even higher, but I think that the three-stage process set out by the Government is a method that works and that we can support.
	I hope that the Minister will, as a result of the debate and the other deliberations she has had upstairs, now ensure that sufficient research is done in support of the Government's view that those penalties work. I know that some research has been commissioned in the past, and I do not think the issuing of 400,000 fixed penalty notices since 2004, implemented across all 43 police forces, would have resulted in nobody being discomfited, so such steps clearly work, but there is a need for further research of the sort that the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate spoke about.
	The hon. Gentleman was also right when he said that this three-stage process must be properly monitored, and I was grateful that the Minister responded positively to that suggestion. The worry is that the warning that should currently be given is not in the local notes of police officers. That is why I have put to the Ministerand I put it to her again nowthat if there is concern that there is not proper monitoring, the proper course of action is for the Home Secretary to write to the chief constables in the 43 areas or to communicate with ACPO. There are many methods by which the Home Secretary can get across to chief constables the importance and necessity of recording such informationand I notice that the Minister for Security, Counter-Terrorism, Crime and Policing has just entered the Chamber to listen to the debate. I think that that deals with the Opposition's point. I therefore hope that the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle), will go away and, not have an informal chat with the Home Secretary, but actually make sure something is done to support this, so that there can be more robustness to the three-stage process that she spoke about.
	On the level of penalty, I have no problems with the fine that has been mentioned or with the effectiveness of the PNDs. I think they have been effective. We know that skunk now accounts for between 70 and 80 per cent. of the cannabis seized on the streets, whereas six years ago it only accounted for 15 per cent., and, as we also know, skunk is a much stronger version of the drug.

Paul Holmes: As Chair of the Select Committee on Home Affairs, does the right hon. Gentleman have more evidence for what he has just said about knowing that PNDs are effective? The Government do not have any evidence on whether they are effective or notthere is no research baseso has the Select Committee taken any evidence on this? The Chair of the Select Committee said he knew they had been effectivehow?

Keith Vaz: From the information that has come to me. No, we have not taken evidence on this, which is why it is important that we look at this issue in the inquiry we are about to start, and I promise the hon. Gentleman that we will. Obviously, the Government take slightly longer than a Select Committee to commission reports and then review them and conclude, but we will look into the issue, and it is to be hoped that we will have the evidence he seeks. If PNDs are not effective, he can be clear that, with Members such as the hon. Member for Monmouth sitting on the Committee, the report will not be agreed by the Committee. We will certainly look at penalties.
	I also want to discuss the effectiveness not of Government policy, but of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs. The hon. Member for Chesterfield referred to Professor Nutt. It was Professor Nutt who said recently that there was not much difference between horse-riding and ecstasy, and it was Professor Nutt and his council who said that cannabis should be downgraded from class B to class C. The body is called the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs and it only advises the Home Secretary, and it is right that, in the end, the Home Secretary and politicians, who are accountable to this House, should make the final decision. The Home Secretary needs to have a few words with the chairman of the advisory council. First, she needs to put him right on his statement, although I think that he has made some subsequent comments about it. At the end of the day, it must be for the Home Secretary to decide on these matters and for the Government to send out an appropriate message.
	If the Opposition vote to annul this order, they will be sending out the wrong message to the publicthat this House does not treat the issue seriously enough. In accepting penalty notices for disorder and talking about the need for more research, and with the increase in the amount of skunk available on the streets of our capital city and other cities, the Government need to send out the message that it is vital that we continue with the Home Secretary's tough line on drugs. We must continue to ensure, even if the advice is against us, that if the Home Secretary and the Government feel that it is important to reclassify this drug, that is what we should do. It is what we have done and we should ensure that we monitor the process so that those who mistakenly believe that in some way taking drugs is acceptable social practicewhether they are celebrities or whoever elseunderstand that this House will be very serious about the way in which it deals with this real and difficult problem.

Douglas Hogg: Because of the lateness of the hour, I shall be brief. I am not opposed to the principle of fixed penalty notices. They have a role to play, but they should be confined to relatively minor transgressions. Indeed, I would qualify that by saying that they should be confined to very minor transgressions.
	My anxiety, looking at the schedule, is that the fixed penalty notices are capable of being applied in more serious cases. For example, in the example I gave to the Minister, giving a false report to the police can amount to conspiracy to pervert the course of justice. We can all recognise that theft is a very serious offence, and criminal damage ditto. The point about the sale of alcohol to persons under 18 has been ventilated frequently in this House. Incidentally, the last offence under part 1knowingly giving a false alarm to one of the emergency servicescan be a very serious offence.
	The Minister made a perfectly fair point in that she said, rightly, that the police have discretion and that a constable on the beat, identifying an offence of this character, can choose to arrest and to go through the prosecution process. However, that places a considerable burden on the police because they have to go through the arrest process and they might have to turn up in court. There is a temptation to an officer on the beat. Incidentally, many years ago I was a special constable, so I have some experience. There is a real temptation to take the easy option. Although I am not saying for a moment that all officers will do that, some certainly will. The truth is, as I have often said in this House, that if one gives powers to officials one can be sure that those powers will be abused at one stage or another.
	The problem, it seems to me, is that when we extend the capacity to apply fixed penalties to offences that are not minor, we can be quite sure that on occasion they will be applied in cases that should go to the courts. Hon. Members have cited various good reasons why such cases should go to the courts, especially when an addiction of one kind or another is an underlying cause. In any event, I think that theft, for example, is an offence that should generally go to the courts. I am unhappy therefore with the concept of the various offences that I have mentioned, which are capable of being serious, being included in the schedule.
	I want to be brief, as I know that three other hon. Members want to speak. I shall vote with my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Burrowes) against the order, because it includes offences that should not be contained in the schedule.

Humfrey Malins: I, too, shall be brief in view of the shortness of the time. As always, I declare an interest as a lawyer, Crown court recorder and part-time district judge. What troubles me about the principle of fixed penalty notices is that the motive behind them seems to be to make life easier and simpler for the police, with less form-filling and less hassle than going the whole way to court. If that is part of the motivation, I think that it is wrong. I entirely agree with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) that, if the matter concerned is of the very lowest seriousnesssuch as dropping litter, and so onthere is a case for the use of a fixed penalty notice. However, that is not appropriate for the more serious offences.
	I am troubled about judicial discretion being exercised largely by officers on the beat, and I fear that some very serious matters will simply not see the light of day if penalty notices are being issued. The notes accompanying the order state:
	Penalty notice disposal provides the recipient with the benefit of an administrative disposal which does not require attendance at court nor an admission of guilt and does not result in a record of criminal conviction.
	That would be fine for dropping litter and similar matters, but what about the other offences? As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham said, the schedule contains some serious offences. Theft carries a prison sentence, but the list includes wasting police time, criminal damage and selling alcohol to under-18s. It cannot be right that, for all those offences, something happens that does not result in any record whatsoever. Moreover, many of the offences also have victims, but they appear to have no say in what will happen.
	I am troubled by those two points. In the remaining minutes at my disposal, I want to make it clear that I am also troubled that cannabis possession is to be included in the list of offences for which a penalty notice is handed out. Goodness knows what the courts will think when they discover that neither magistrates, judges nor anyone else will be able to know that a penalty noticefor theft, sayhas been handed out to the people come before them. The law will not allow that knowledge to be made available, as it does not amount to an admission of guilt. It is therefore not relevant and cannot be taken into account.
	Opinions vary about the sentences that should be handed out for cannabis possession, but I believe it to be a gateway drug to more serious crime. When a person is up for possession of cannabis, I would prefer it if the courts did not say, Stand up! Here's a 50 fine, next case, please! I want the courts to take that offence more seriously, as I believe that, in the long term, cannabis can be very damaging drug indeed.
	I am unhappy at any suggestion that the possession of cannabisand skunk, of course, is so strongor other potentially serious offences can be dealt with, not by a judicial authority but by something happening in the street, no record of which is kept at all.

David Davies: Like another hon. Member who spoke earlier, I want to declare an interest in that I am a serving special constable. I am also a member of the Home Affairs Committee.
	In an ideal world, there would be no such things as penalty notices for disorder. Unfortunately, the world that we live in is not ideal. The reality is that two police officers halfway through a shift who are faced with a person who has committed a minor offence will have to make a choice: they can turn a blind eyeone would hope that that would never happenissue a penalty notice for disorder, in some instances, or make an arrest.
	Let me make clear what making an arrest would entail for the two officers. Because of the rules about how custody suites must come up to various standards these days, they are few and far between, so the officers would have to wait for transport to take them to a police station far away. They would then have to wait to book their prisoner in, and wait again while the prisoner was assessed medically and while a solicitor and perhaps an interpreter were found. The officers would have to write up their notes, and then go back to interview the prisoner. The long and short of it all is that the officers will have written off practically their whole shift. A lot of time will also be used up by the custody sergeant and the other people involved in the process.
	If, at the end of all of that, a meaningful sanction is applied to the prisoner, the process will have been worth while. However, if the person who has committed a minor offence is back out on the streets a few hours later and faces only a small fine some way down the line, one has to ask what any of it has achieved.
	I am not against PNDs; in fact, I have come around to them, in principle, as a way to make the best of a bad job. The question that concerns me has to do with the crimes for which they are used. For the same reasons that other hon. Members have already outlined, I have a problem with PNDs being used for any form of theft, such as shoplifting, or of drug abuse. I do not accept the comments made earlier by an hon. Member who seemed to liken cannabis to alcohol. Cannabis is a very dangerous drug that leads on to other drugs. It is often used as a defence for heinous crimes, which suggests to me that the courts and the authorities need to bear down as strongly as possible on this drug. With all due respect to the Minister, I fail to understand why PNDs are being issued for the possession of cannabis.
	I can think of two other offences that cry out for PNDs, and it might interest the Minister to know that I have tabled an amendment to the Policing and Crime Bill, proposing that we implement PNDs for people who have committed minor ticket offences on the railways. I know from my own experience that the British transport police spend a great deal of time trying to sort out people who have committed such offences, and it would be absolutely great if they could give out a PND and impose an instant fine on people who admitted the offence. That would save a vast amount of time.
	Another offence that is worth looking into in this regard relates to what I call professional beggars, although I would not want to table an amendment on the matter without doing further research. The people in question are often removed from railway stations and other places with very large amounts of money on them. They are often not arrested for any offence, but if they could be given an immediate PND, some of that money could be taken away from them. So there is a place for penalty notices for disorder.
	If the Minister is trying to free up police time, I offer her those two suggestions in all helpfulness. I urge her please to look at the amendment that I have tabled, to see whether the Government can find a way of supporting it. It would have widespread support among the police, and I cannot see how it would go against anything that her Government stand for politically.
	In an ideal world, offenders committing any sort of an offence would simply be marched into a court. There would be no long process; they would appear before a magistrate straight away and they would receive summary justice. We do not live in an ideal world, however. I hope that things improve, but until they do, there is a place for PNDs. Let them be used effectively, however, and let them be used for appropriate offences. Theft and drug possession are not appropriate offences for PNDs, and I will therefore oppose the motion.

David Burrowes: We have had an interesting and important debate, and it was a debate that the Government did not wish us to have. Their view was that the order should have been dealt with under the negative resolution procedure. If that had happened, this informed debate in the House would not have seen the light of day.
	The right hon. Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz) urged the Opposition not to let process get in the way. This debate has highlighted the lack of process, the abridged time in which the hastily drafted order was put before the House, and the fact that 21 offences were taken off the order and that the order was revoked and then revised in its present form. We have been able to highlight those points today.
	The debate about the process goes further, however. The process that the Government want to implement is an escalator, comprising the three-strikes warning, the fixed penalty notice and finally the possibility of arrest and prosecution. The reality that has been exposed today is that that escalator is not functioning, and it is unlikely to do so in many parts of the country, given the lack of a computer system and a means of recording the offences involved.
	Opposition Members have also highlighted the number of serious offences in the order, and on the schedule, that will now be dealt with using a fixed penalty notice, rather than properly seeing the light of day in the courts. Summary justice has traditionally been done, and seen to be done, in magistrates courts. As we have already seen, the risk is that the expansion of the use of PNDs, which have their place in limited circumstances, will lead to their falling into disrepute. It could also have that effect on summary justice. The order that the Government sought to push through under cover has come to light, and we now need to annul it. I urge hon. Members to do that today.
	 Question put.
	 The House proceeded to a Division.

Madam Deputy Speaker: I ask the Serjeant at Arms to investigate the delay in the Aye lobby.

The House having divided: Ayes 197, Noes 272.

Question accordingly negatived.

Business without Debate
	  
	Delegated Legislation

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Family Law

That the draft Child Support (Miscellaneous and Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2009, which were laid before this House on 26 January, be approved. (Ian Lucas.)
	 The House divided: Ayes 313, Noes 4.

Question accordingly agreed to.

European Union Documents

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 119(11)),

Control of Ozone-depleting Substances

That this House takes note of European Union Document No. 12832/08 + Addenda 1 to 3, Commission Communication on completing the phase-out of substances that deplete the ozone layer; and supports the Government's aim of securing simplified legislation which reduces unnecessary administrative burdens, ensures compliance with the latest adjustments of the Montreal Protocol and addresses future challenges in order to ensure the timely recovery of the ozone layer. (Ian Lucas.)
	 The House divided: Ayes 307, Noes 6.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Anne Moffat: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek your advice on whether the frustration that the House has experienced tonight is appropriate. Conservative Members called for a vote and then did not voteand they did it deliberately in order to delay us from reaching a motion that would allow the youth of the country to debate in this Chamber. What makes their backsides any better than those of the youth of this country to sit on these Benches?

Mr. Speaker: The rules of the House say that when a proposition is put from the Chair, hon. Members are entitled to seek to divide the House. I am not allowed to interpret why hon. Members do this; I can only seek the opinion of the House. There would be no other motive than a wish to divide the House on the motion before hon. Members; they would not seek to delay any other matters from coming up.

James Gray: I beg to move, That the House do sit in private.

Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 163).
	 The House divided: Ayes 5, Noes 291.

Question accordingly negatived.

Chris Bryant: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sure that it is in order for right hon. and hon. Members to force votes even on issues on which they have no intention of voting themselves, including several Conservative Members sitting opposite. But is it really in the interests of this House and of true democracy in this country to use every trick in the book to try to prevent young people from coming into this Chamber and to try to prevent debate? Have we not seen the forces of reaction sitting across the Chamber, using old politics to frustrate young people?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is entering into a debate. A proposition was put and soundly defeated. That is democracy and a strength of this House; hon. Members have spoken. If other Members did not want to vote, that is their business.
	The hon. Gentleman is the Deputy Leader of the House. The motion is in his hands. He can decide to give it Government time to make sure that it is debated. I have always asked for temperate language. Every trick in the book was perhaps not what I would have said; Every procedure in the book.

Martin Horwood: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker, I was in the Committee that scrutinised the motion on the control of ozone-depleting substances. Not one Conservative Member opposed it there, just as not one Conservative Member actually voted against it when we divided just now. Conservative Members were effectively voting to try to stop debate on whether or not our bottoms are so sacred that we cannot share these Benches with members of the UK Youth Parliament. Does that not bring this place into disrepute and risk lowering our reputation below that of the Youth Parliament?

Mr. Speaker: I am at risk of repeating myself. If the matter is brought before the House in Government time, nothing will be delayed. A full debate will take place with a vote to follow.

Edward Garnier: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Have you had a request from the Secretary of State for Justice to make a statement about the fiasco of the C-NOMIS computer system for the prison and probation services? It is now disgracefully late in coming into service and has exceeded its budget by 300 per cent. to reach more than 690 million. This represents an object lesson in failure. May I suggest that the public have a legitimate expectation that the Government will come here and account for it?

Mr. Speaker: That is not a matter for the Chair. That is something for which the Speaker cannot be blamed; it is expenditure for which someone else will be blamed.

Christopher Chope: Further to the points of order, Mr. Speaker. Have you heard from the Government as to when they will give Government time for a proper debate on the Youth Parliament issue? When the Prime Minister announced the proposal, he said it would be subject to proper discussion and consultation with all Members of this House. Because that consultation has not taken place, a number of us are concerned and want a debate on it. On, I think, six or seven occasions, a motion has been on the Order Paper, but with no debate, and the Government have been trying to put pressure for this issue to be put through on the nod. I am sure that you, Mr. Speaker, would think that it is not the sort of issue that should be put through on the nod, but that it should be subject to proper debate.

Mr. Speaker: I can say no more on the matter than I have already said.

USE OF CHAMBER (UNITED KINGDOM YOUTH PARLIAMENT)

Motion made,
	That this House welcomes the work of the United Kingdom Youth Parliament in providing young people with an opportunity to engage with the political process and bring about social change; notes that many hon. Members from all parts of the House are actively involved in the work of the UK Youth Parliament; and accordingly resolves that the UK Youth Parliament should be allowed for this year alone to hold its 2009 annual meeting in the Chamber of this House. (Ian Lucas.)

Hon. Members: Object.

PETITIONS

Health Services (Northamptonshire)

Peter Bone: I am delighted to present a petition on the biggest issue I have had to deal with since becoming a Member of Parliament. More than 4,000 people have signed the petition, and the leading three signatories are Mr. Colin Wright and Mr. Richard Lewis, respectively the leader and deputy leader of Rushden town council, and Councillor Andy Mercer, the leader of East Northamptonshire council. The petition concerns the closure of an out-patients facility in my constituency and the moving of it to a town some distance away.
	The petition states:
	The Humble Petition of residents of Rushden, Northamptonshire and surrounding areas,
	Sheweth that the plans to close the hospital outpatients facility at the Rushden Memorial Clinic and replace them with a facility outside of Rushden is unacceptable; further sheweth that the Rushden Memorial Clinic was paid for by the people of Rushden to serve the health needs of the people of Rushden; and believes that Kettering General Hospital NHS Foundation Trust should not be removing the only outpatient facility from the biggest town in East Northamptonshire to a small town with no adequate public transport.
	Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House urges the Secretary of State for Health to require Kettering General Hospital NHS Foundation Trust to review its decision and to build an enhanced outpatient facility in Rushden in line with the local NHS's own weighted criteria.
	And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. etc.
	[P000326]

Care Home Residents (Allowances)

Paul Burstow: This petition is about people who are often out of sight and out of mind: those people who live in care homes. It concerns the 240,000 people in our country who receive an allowance called the personal expense allowance, which amounts to just 3 a day, and which is based on national means-testing rules, which mean that those with savings of more than 22,250 have to surrender their pensions to pay for their care home fees. This allowance is going up by 75p this April to 21.90. Last year, in answer to a parliamentary question, the Minister responsible at the time, the hon. Member for Bury, South (Mr. Lewis), promised a consultation on these matters, and this petition is intended to raise these issues in the House this evening.
	The petition states:
	The Petition of care home residents, their relatives, and others,
	Declares that the over a quarter of a million of the poorest older people living in care homes are entitled to a dignified level of income; further declares that under national means-testing rules for local authorities, these people part with any income to pay towards their care home fees; notes that for older residents this means any pensions they get, and normally all they are left with is a Personal Expenses Allowances of 21.15 a week; further notes that the Personal Expenses Allowance is expected to cover the cost of all personal items not covered by the care package agreed by the local authority, including clothes and toiletries.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons calls upon Her Majesty's Government to recognise the representations of Age Concern and others and increase the Personal Expenses Allowance for people living in residential care who receive state support to at least 40 per week.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	[P000327]

Planning and Development (Essex)

Bob Spink: This petition relates to green land at the side of the Dutch Village on Canvey Island. Only six houses in the whole of the Dutch Village did not respond to the petition, which shows the determination and clarity of vision of Canvey residents. If the development goes ahead, as some borough councillors wish, it will make much worse the flooding risks for every island resident as well as further damaging our island's environment and putting greater pressure on our infrastructure. I stand shoulder to shoulder with all the excellent petitioners and with Graham and Linda Bracci and Jan Eagle, who prepared the petition. Canvey people are astounded that some borough councillors are trying to lift the Environment Agency ban on flood risk development on Canvey Island so that the development can go ahead. The petition states:
	The Petition of Graham Bracci, residents of the Dutch Village and others,
	Declares that Castle Point Councillors are wrong to seek to develop the fields behind Limburg Road and Holland Avenue with an estate of 400 houses; believes that this would put Canvey's roads and other infrastructure under intolerable pressure; notes that this area is subject to flooding and should be controlled under Environment Agency flood protection development policies; further believes that there is sufficient brown field land to meet the target for new build and that councillors should consult residents properly and listen to them more seriously, should improve Canvey's infrastructure and change their plans to cram yet more housing estates on the Island.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to make it clear to Castle Point council that it will uphold the Environment Agency's rules on development in flood risk areas, that the Council should provide better infrastructure and should protect Castle Point Green Belt.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	[P000329]

European Union

Bob Spink: I have a second petition about public opinion on the European Union. In a true democracy, hon. Members will always listen carefully to public opinion and they should avoid acting in this place as though they know better than the people who they are sent here to represent. It is with some sadness that I have to table this petition from Mr. Keith Johnson, members of the Campaign for an Independent Britain and other excellent people.
	The petition states:
	The Petition of the Democracy Movement Bakewell,
	Declares that a new poll by ComRes, a member of the British Polling Council, commissioned by the Campaign for an Independent Britain, reveals that British people believe the European Union is out-of-touch, unfair, corrupt and extremely costly for UK taxpayers and that UK politicians are hopelessly out of touch; further notes that 83 per cent of those polled say British law should be paramount, 75 per cent think UK politicians do not do enough to stand up for British interests in Europe, and 71 per cent want a national referendum to decide whether the UK remains in the EU; further declares the petitioners' deep concern that the EU spent 2.4 billion euros of taxpayers' money in 2008 to promote itself and its overriding aim of ever closer union.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to declare that it will not take Britain into the euro zone and that it accepts the need for a referendum on the fundamental issue of Britain's sovereignty.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	[P000330]

Planning and Development (Heathrow)

John McDonnell: This petition is on behalf of the supporters of the campaign to save Cherry Lane cemetery. I presented a similar petition on the subject several months ago in the hope that we as a community would gain assurances from BAA and the Government that this road would not go through our local cemetery. No assurances that give us that guarantee have been presented by either BAA or the Government, so tonight I and my colleagues the hon. Members for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) and for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Hurd) present tens of thousands more signatures to the petition in the hope that the Government and BAA will not drive this road through our local cemetery.
	The petition states:
	The Petition of the Supporters of the Campaign to Save Cherry Lane Cemetery,
	Declares that the proposal by the British Airports Authority to construct an access road to the proposed Third Runway and Sixth Terminal at Heathrow Airport through Cherry Lane Cemetery, which is the only functioning cemetery in this part of the London Borough of Hillingdon, is an act of outrageous, sacrilegious destruction, which is causing considerable distress to the families of loved ones buried at the cemetery and concern to the local community.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons calls upon the Government to reject this proposal and safeguard this site.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	[P000331]

Nick Hurd: All three Hillingdon MPs are here to present the same petition, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Our presence reflects the complete unity in the borough in opposition to the plan to expand Heathrow airport.
	The petition states:
	The Petition of the Supporters of the Campaign to Save Cherry Lane Cemetery,
	Declares that the proposal by the British Airports Authority to construct an access road to the proposed Third Runway and Sixth Terminal at Heathrow Airport through Cherry Lane Cemetery, which is the only functioning cemetery in this part of the London Borough of Hillingdon, is an act of outrageous, sacrilegious destruction, which is causing considerable distress to the families of loved ones buried at the cemetery and concern to the local community.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons calls upon the Government to reject this proposal and safeguard this site.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	[P000333]

John Randall: I wish to submit another petition on behalf of the thousands of people outraged by BAA's proposal that would result in the desecration of the Cherry Lane cemetery in the London borough of Hillingdon. In case the message has not got through already to BAA, the petition states:
	The Petition of the Supporters of the Campaign to Save Cherry Lane Cemetery,
	Declares that the proposal by the British Airports Authority to construct an access road to the proposed Third Runway and Sixth Terminal at Heathrow Airport through Cherry Lane Cemetery, which is the only functioning cemetery in this part of the London Borough of Hillingdon, is an act of outrageous, sacrilegious destruction, which is causing considerable distress to the families of loved ones buried at the cemetery and concern to the local community.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons calls upon the Government to reject this proposal and safeguard this site.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	[P000334]

Traffic Management (Somerset)

Ian Liddell-Grainger: You will be glad to hear, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that my petition deals with another subject. The A39 in my constituency is a major arterial route across west Somerset. It has been a dangerous road for many years and most people in west Somerset see that as due to a lack of funding, mainly by the county council but also by the Government.
	The Petition of concerned motorists, and others,
	Declares that the traffic lights at the junction of the A39 and off to the Dunster Steep change far too quickly; and further declares that there should be a camera operating at this junction, to help manage the lights.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Secretary of State for Transport to take action to improve the management of the traffic lights at this junction.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	[P000332]

Bassetlaw (Arts)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. (Mark Tami.)

John Mann: Considering the controversy about youth a few minutes ago, I hope that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will pass on to Mr. Speaker the thanks of my young constituents who have participated in a parliamentary summer school here over the past two summers. They have considered matters such as the arts, and Mr. Speaker has been informative and courteous in inviting them to meet him in his chambers. His welcome was gratefully received, and the feedback that I have had from those young people is that it has been the highlight of their visits to Parliament over the past two summers. I hope that you will pass on their grateful thanks, Mr. Deputy Speaker: they have expressed them in writing already, but I would like them also to be recorded in the pages of  Hansard.
	Young people in my constituency inform much of what I have to say about the arts, thanks to an advisory committee made up of youths of all ages. The committee has worked with me over the past 18 months to prepare proposals to remedy the deficit in support for the arts that my constituency, like others in the former coalfield areas, suffers from. I know that the Minister and funding bodies will be interested in our proposals, not least as they affect money coming directly and indirectly from national Government.
	The Government generally have a proud record on arts spending, which has increased nationally by 73 per cent. since 1998, to a total of 412 million last year. Investment in this country's creative industries has grown, and we are global leaders in advertising, craft, cultural heritage, design, music, literature and the performing and visual arts. I know this because the sector employs some of my constituents. The statistics show unequivocally that there has been an almost 40 per cent. increase in the number of people attending performances, that 85 per cent. more new plays have been produced, and that nearly 6,000 performances are given at home and on tour annually.
	The Government have made successful efforts to get more young people involved in the arts. For example, the Creative Partnerships programme works in some of the most deprived wards in the country. It has worked with 330,000 students in 2,700 schools, and 90 per cent. of the head teachers involved thought that it had improved pupils' confidence and communication skills. We would like the opportunity to spread such good work to the schools of Bassetlaw.
	The Government's national record on the arts is something to be praised and to be proud of, but there is a deficit in constituencies such as mine, particularly in former coalfield areas. On other indicators, in the eight years since I became the Member of Parliament for Bassetlaw, we have done well compared with the national average. We have had the largest investment in new secondary school buildings per capita anywhere in England. Our primary care trust had the largest increase in funding anywhere in Britain in the last settlement, and we have been the most successful part of Britain in terms of health performance for some time.
	The jobs market is experiencing difficulties in the rest of the country, and in my area as well. However, in January, Laing O'Rourke created 300 new jobs in my area, and MBA Polymers is creating 90 new jobs. Even now, we are creating jobs, and our record has been good on roads and infrastructure. The recently completed improvements to the A1, costing 30 million, represent a significant boost to local people and local businesses, and they supersede achievements in other parts of the country. Would that that were the case with the arts.
	Let me give the House some examples of the problems. Berry's music shop used to be on Bridge street in Worksop. It acted as the centre for the burgeoning music scene, selling sheet music for the colliery brass bands, new electric guitars, tickets for classical concerts and much more. But Berry's was bought by Williams Music, which went into liquidation in 2007. It closed down, leaving nowhere to buy music or classical instruments, and no single place to find a music teacher in my constituency.
	Then there is the shame of the Regal arts centre, which was once run by Bassetlaw council. It suffered under-investment over the years, and in 2004 it was closed down and handed over to the Bassetlaw Studio Project. The project was well-meaning and successful, but very small. It ran small-scale music projects for young people, but it had neither the resources nor the experience to take over the Regal arts centre.
	The Regal arts centre, as well as having a small cinema, used to run a programme of live comedy, theatre, children's workshops and a regionally acclaimed folk programme, attracting people from a wide area. It also used to stage performances by local groups such as the light operatic societies, amateur theatre groups and dance schools. Sadly, it is now in great decline. It receives no more local authority funding, as such funding is no longer available for such operations.
	The Regal was never ideal. It was old and dilapidated, and needed a great deal of investment. The films that were shown there were on their second release, following their screening in the multiplexes. My constituency is 44 miles acrossthe size of Greater Londonyet it now has no cinema. In the United Kingdom, 3,661 screens currently receive advertising in more than 700 locations. We are the size of Greater London, but we have no cinema.
	Areas such as Bassetlaw are rather important when it comes to the arts. For many years, the county council had a strong touring programme. Its Stages programme brought groups such as Northern Broadsides within reach of my constituents, if not quite inside the boundaries of my constituency. Music in Quiet Places took professional music into our churches around the constituency. These European-funded programmes have now stopped. I could give other examples.
	There are many good activities going on, involving young and old people. People across all sectors of society are performing without the resource or facilities to do so: for example, through the Worksop music and drama festival, Ryton Chorale's concerts, and Worksop Miners Welfare Band and other bands around the area. They have been going for centuries and are still going today. I wish to put on record and acknowledge the hard work done by people in such groups as the Worksop light operatic society, Bassetlaw youth theatre and many more, who put great effort into keeping the performing arts alive in my constituency. The traditions of the brass bands in mining communitiesthe marching bands from my constituency that led the wayare not long gone, but they are gone.
	The reason is simple. In my area, we have the creativity, the ingenuity, the people prepared to put in the time and effort, and the performers; we have the artists, the painters, the musicians. In every form of the arts we have the talent, but it is undernourished and under-resourced. Let me cite some starkly contrasting statistics to demonstrate why the money does not come to my area or to such places as Ashfield, Bolsover and all the other former mining communities in the vicinity. I hope that the Minister will take these statistics and this debate to her own officials, to the national lottery, to the Arts Council, and to the Department for Children, Schools and Families project, myplace, in order that they can learn from them.
	There is bias in the system. I calculate that since the lottery was formed, 1.63 billion has gone to the arts in London, which has the same geographical space as my constituency. That may be an underestimate, but it is a minimum. In my constituency, we are talking about a rather smaller sum439,389. I have been through the figures. Some allocations have been made to things not in my constituency and should not have been included, so in fact the figure is slightly lower still: just over 400,000 for Bassetlaw, but 1.63 million for London. Kensington and Chelsea has received 133 million; Islington, South, 100 million; Islington, North, 39 million; Hampstead, 27 million; Hammersmith, 25 million; Bethnal Green, 31 million; Holborn and St. Pancras, 116 million; Cities of London and Westminster, 356 million; Vauxhall, 127 million; Regent's Park, 22 million; Southwark and Bermondsey, 41 million; and Hackney, South, 50 million. I could go on and on.
	Those figures compare with 400,000 in my constituency and similar amounts in adjoining former mining constituencies. That is why the arts are not flourishing there. That is why we do not have an arts centre that people of all ages, but particularly young people, can be proud of and utilisethat can garner their skills, take their talents forward, and give them the opportunity to express themselves in the way that people in London and the other big cities do.
	One would expect that with this absurd bias in the London-oriented, London-dictated, London-run lottery, the Arts Council might, with its modest funding, redress the balance. I have last year's figures for Arts Council funding, and what do we see? Which constituencies get mostmore than 500 millionof the money? Those in London. Some 27 London constituencies got more than 100,000 from the Arts Council. London, and the centre of London in particular, gets all the lottery money, which is hundreds of millions of pounds, and on top of that it gets the Arts Council money. Instead of redressing the gross, awful imbalance in lottery funding, particularly as regards the arts, the Arts Council does the opposite, and reinforces the discrimination against my constituency. Bassetlaw got 13,716. We are thankful for that. A quarter of itin fact a quarter of all Arts Council money for my areahas gone to the Harley gallery on the Duchess of Portland's estate. We are grateful for that.
	However, the deprived communitiesthe centre of Worksop, and the mining villages and former mining villagesare not getting any money from the Arts Council or the lottery for the arts. That is why the arts are struggling. There are brilliant people such as David Jordan, who created the Acorn centre, having received no funding whatever to put towards the running costs. With tiny amounts of capital coming in, he created a centre that allows people to perform. Why are the Government not directing the Arts Council, and not advising the lottery, to put money into such facilities to allow the arts to flourish?
	We would accept 5 per cent. of what some of the London constituencies have got. I would take 5 per cent. of the money for City of London and Westminster; that would make a huge difference. It is not that we have not put proposals forward. We do not have all those arty-farty peopleprofessionals in the artswho spend their time running around bidding for money. We have decent, working people, who do a job, raise their families and get on with life. They spend their spare time creating the arts in my constituency, and they deserve a slice of the cake. It is a shame that the Arts Council in particular does not attempt to redress the balance by putting money where it will make a huge, major difference.
	My constituency demands the right to have a cinema, like every other place, so that we can get kids off the street and give them the opportunity to see the latest films. We demand an arts centre, so that the talents of people of all ages can find expression. We demand what everyone else, particularly the large cities, and particularly London, is getting in excess. The Government need to redress the balance. In areas such as mine, people need a chance to express their creativity. I look forward to hearing a positive response from the Minister on how the imbalance can be redressed.

Barbara Follett: First, I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. I know how much he cares about the subject, his constituency and his constituents, and I commend him on his tireless work in support of the arts in his Bassetlaw constituency. That part of north Nottinghamshire has a long history of interest in the artsin fact, one of the longest such histories in Britain. Creswell Crags near Worksop contains the country's only known examples of ice age rock art. Stone age, bronze age and Roman artefacts have also been found in Bassetlaw. However, it is the present, not the past, that my hon. Friend and I are concerned with today.
	I know that my hon. Friend shares my belief in the power of the arts to transform communities and the lives of those who live in them, because he has worked closely with Arts Council England, East Midlands to try to do just that in his constituency, and because of the impassioned speech that he gave in defence of his constituents' need for better arts provision. His close involvement in the issue is demonstrated by the detailed examples that he has given of instances in which he would like to see improvements to arts provision for his constituents. He has also detailed the funding provision that he would like there to be.
	However, as my hon. Friend knows, I am constrained on the subject because the funding of individual projects is, very properly, decided at arm's length from Government by Arts Council England. It would, therefore, be wrong for me to comment on the level of support that the Arts Council gives to particular projects, but I am more than happy to comment in general on the issues that he has raised and to give my understanding of the steps that Arts Council England, East Midlands is taking to deal with them. I will make sure that Arts Council England East Midlands is fully apprised of his concern.
	Like my hon. Friend, I am glad to say that over the past decade there has been record investment in the arts in this country, both inside and outside London. As an MP with a constituency outside London and as a Minister who has visited a number of very active artistic endeavours outside London, I cannot remember when the arts scene outside the M25 was as vibrant and as active as it is today. I am doing all I can to ensure that it remains so and keeps growing, despite the downturn.
	My hon. Friend's constituency is in the east midlands region which, like others, has seen a real improvement in artistic activity in the past 10 years. That is, as he mentioned, due in no small way to an increase in funding. Arts Council England East Midlands in this spending round will make grants of more than 50 million. This money will help to support more than 50 regularly funded organisations, or RFOs, including Sinfonia Viva, the region's professional chamber orchestra, the Leicester, Nottingham and Northampton Theatre Trusts, numerous other dance troupes and folk groups, a fistful of festivals, and a very active forum for participatory arts organisations.
	In addition, during the past three years about 900 grants for the arts have been made. Those are worth 16 million and have been funded from lottery funds in the east midlands region. This year sees the culmination of the 130 million arts venue programme in the east midlands. When the Nottingham Contemporary is completed this autumn, the city, which already has the New Art Exchange, will have two brand new arts venues. Those, together with the QUAD in Derby, First Movement in Rowsley and the Curve in Leicester, will give the region five exciting new arts centres.

John Mann: I thank the Minister for kindly giving way. From my constituency to Nottingham, to give the equivalent distance south of where we are now, would take us into the sea beyond Brighton. Therefore whatever happens in Nottingham or Leicester is of little concern to my constituents because it is nowhere near. That is my point.

Barbara Follett: I understand my hon. Friend's point and I will deal with it now.
	I am glad that so many residents of the east midlands have taken advantage of schemes such as Own Art and Take It Away to bring more than 1,000 musical instruments and 75 pieces of art into their own homes. A guitar propped up against a bedroom wall or a picture by an up-and-coming British artist in a living room provide a wonderful opportunity for interaction with the arts in people's own time, in their own home and on a daily basis. But as my hon. Friend stressed, proximity is important, and I realise that distance plays a great part in access to the arts. People should not have to travel if they want to attend arts events, and those should most certainly not be restricted to the big towns and cities.
	I am sorry to hear that my hon. Friend's constituents do not have a cinema. When I first became the Member for Stevenage, there was a similar situation there. I would like to meet my hon. Friend to discuss ways of attracting a cinema to his town. If we are to engage and enthuse people, it is important that there should be projects and events happening within their own areaswithin walking distance and in their communities. I therefore fully understand my hon. Friend's concerns about provision in his constituency and the lack of an arts centre.
	I am glad that my hon. Friend is in discussion with Arts Council England, East Midlands and that it has been meeting not only him, but local arts providers and Nottinghamshire county council, to try to address the issue. Discussions are also being held about other issues in the area, such as support for Young Potential, the scheme at the Worksop Regal for young people who live with real disadvantage which my hon. Friend mentioned. There are issues with the lease and required refurbishment at the Regal, and I hope that they will soon be resolved, not least because the Arts Council and Nottinghamshire county council are providing funding for a programme for learning-disabled people called This Stage Life, which is to be held at the Regal.
	Further discussions are also being held about increasing the number of applications for creative partnerships, which my hon. Friend mentioned. Netherfield infant and nursery school and Meden school and technology college are already involved, and Arts Council England, East Midlands is working with Nottinghamshire county council to encourage more schools to participate. Arts Council England, East Midlands is also involved in talks about the development of the arts on offer for young people at Manton community and learning centre; it is particularly interested in working on dance provision. Arts Council England, East Midlands has also provided small amounts of funding for both development and building work for the Acorn community theatre, which my hon. Friend mentioned, in Worksop.
	As I said at the outset, it is not proper for me to be involved in these discussions, but I am glad that the executive director of Arts Council England, East Midlands has been in contact with my hon. Friend, and I encourage my hon. Friend to develop that relationship.
	I turn now to the lottery awards and other money. In the past five years, my hon. Friend's constituency has had 24 Grants for the Arts awards, with a total value of more than 290,000. However, I have discussed with Arts Council England and the lottery the amount of money that is going from the good causes to local authorities with coalfields in them. Only about 10 per cent. of the total are involved, and we are doing what we can to raise that. However, for lottery awards to be made, lottery applications also have to be made. Sadly, we had only five grants for the arts applications in Bassetlaw in 2007-08. I hope that my hon. Friend will encourage his constituents to create schemes and events and apply for funding.
	I am glad that my hon. Friend has been consulting with local young people about exactly what facilities and schemes they would like to see in Bassetlaw; I am sure that one of their requests was for a cinema, as that was top of my constituents' list. That desire to engage the next generation has led to a number of initiatives. One of the schemes about which we are most excitedand of which his constituents can take advantageis the A Night Less Ordinary scheme, which will provide more than 600,000 free theatre tickets to people under 26 over the next two years. I realise that the nearest theatres are some distance from my hon. Friend's constituencyabout 30 miles awaybut I hope that people will take advantage of this offer to experience some of the Shakespeare, Arthur Miller and Tchaikovsky, among others, being put on in Sheffield, Nottingham, Barnsley, Scunthorpe and Derby over that two-year period. I also hope that the Find Your Talent programme, which has 10 pathfinders running across the country, will eventually help his constituents.
	The Government are involved in many national initiatives in music and dance, creative apprenticeships and singing. I hope that we are paving the way for a bright cultural future for our young people. I understand my hon. Friend's concerns about local provision, and I hope that he will continue to work with Arts Council East Midlands, and with me, to take his ideas forward at a local level, and that arts provision continues to grow in his constituency. I will be watching developments closely and am willing to help him wherever and whenever I can.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 House adjourned.

Deferred Divisions

Representation of the people

That the draft Parliamentary Constituencies (England) (Amendment) Order 2009, which was laid before this House on 29 January, be approved.
	 The House divided: Ayes 402, Noes 58.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Adjournment (easter)

That this House, at its rising on Thursday 2 April 2009, do adjourn till Monday 20 April 2009.
	 The House divided: Ayes 273, Noes 195.

Question accordingly agreed to.

second strategic energy review and european energy networks

That this House takes note of European Union Documents Nos. 15944/08 and ADDS 1 to 4, Commission Communication: Second Strategic Energy Review - An EU energy security and solidarity plan, and 15927/08, Commission Green Paper: Towards a secure, sustainable and competitive European energy network; and further notes the Government's support for appropriate action at the European level, where this would be effective in furthering energy efficiency, security of supply and the development of a liberalised energy market within the Union.
	 The House divided: Ayes 269, Noes 65.

Question accordingly agreed to.